Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011 Housing Planning Study - County of Hawaii Beyond Information. Intelligence. Established 1960 Database Marketing Economic& Social Impact Studies Evaluations Research Mcdehng/Forecaslm HAWAVI HOUSING PLANNING STUDY, 2011 Prepared for the: sm County of Hawaii 1042 Fort Street Mall Suite 200 Honolulu. HI 96813 Ph (808)537-3356 Toll Free(877)536-5767 Fax. (808)537-2686 E-mail info@smshawaiicom Website www smshawaii.corn SMS Affiliations and Associations: Experian International Survey Research Prepared by SMS Research & Marketing Services, Inc. Solutions Pacific,LLC November, 2011 SMS Consulting,LLC 31 Marketing&Communications �����® Be. ond In f ormation_ Intelligence. Consulting Database Marketing Economic&Social Impact November 28, 2011 Studies Research Mr. Stephen J. Arnett Director County of Hawaii SMS Office of Housing and Community Development 1042 Fort Street Mall 50 Wailuku Drive Suite 200 Hilo, Hawaii 96720-2456 Honolulu, HI 96813 Ph:(808)537-3356 Toll Free(877)535-5767 Fax:(808)537-2686 Dear Mr. Arnett: E-mail:info(rDsmsHawari.com Website: www.smsHawai'i.com It is with pleasure that SMS Research presents this Final Report of the findings of the Hawaii Housing Planning Study 2011 for the County of Hawaii. We believe the results will be an important tool to be used by those who will plan for and develop new housing opportunities for Hawaii's people in the remainder of this decade. It has been a pleasure serving you during the entire course of this project, and we look forward to working with you in the future. Sincerely, James E. Dannemiller Executive Vice President SMS Affiliations and Associations: Alan Barker Associates Warren Dastmp—Kauai Affiliate Experian International Survey Research Solutions Pacific,LLC 3i Marketing&Communications ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Hawaii Housing Planning Study, 2011 This report is the culmination of months of work on the part of many people. It is appropriate to acknowledge the leaders of this effort and their continuing dedication to ensuring that housing planning in Hawaii is based on the hard facts of our housing situation and the needs of Hawai'i residents. The people listed below, and the agencies they represent, have demonstrated the kind of wisdom and foresight required to maintain a comprehensive long-range data system for housing planning in Hawaii and to use those facts to develop effective housing and plans. In their dedication to the successful resolution of Hawaii's housing problems, they have provided the guidance and direction to put the project in motion, the resources to make it possible, and the tireless application of the data to make the system work for the people of Hawai'i. ➢ Hawai'i Housing Finance & Development Corporation: Karen Seddon, Janice Takahashi, Lisa Wond ➢ City and County of Honolulu: Gail Kaito, Dina Wong ➢ Maui County: Jo-Ann T. Ridao, Wayde Oshiro ➢ Hawai'i County: Stephen J. Arnett, Jeremy McComber ➢ Kaua'i County: Eugene Jimenez, Gary Mackler, Barbara Pendragon ➢ Department of Hawaiian Home Lands: Alapaki Nahale-a, Bob Freitas, Scottina Ruis ➢ U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development: Mike Flores, Mark Chandler ➢ Hawai'i Department of Human Services, Benefit, Employment and Support Services Division, Homeless Programs Office: Sandra Miyoshi ➢ Castle and Cooke Homes Hawai'i: Harry Saunders ➢ Pacific Housing Assistance Corporation: Marvin Awaya Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page i 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 As in the past, a large number of housing experts in Hawaii have contributed to the contents of this report. The people listed below have given their time and expertise to provide ideas and direction, facts and figures, and review and reaction throughout the last seven months. Without their time and talent, this project would not have succeeded. We are grateful to each one of them. ➢ Keith Ishida, City and County of Honolulu, Office of Housing ➢ David Arakawa, Land Use Research Foundation of Hawaii ➢ Waynette Cabral, Hawaii State Council on Developmental Disabilities ➢ Jennifer Cilfone and Keith Kuboyama, Family Programs Hawaii ➢ Rona Fukumoto, Director of Intake, Catholic Charities Hawaii ➢ Rick Hobson, Gentry Homes Ltd. ➢ Carol Ignacio, Office of Social Ministry, Roman Catholic Diocese of Honolulu ➢ Eva K. Kishimoto and Adam Y.C. Quon, Adult Mental Health Division, Department of Health ➢ Anastasia Keller-Collins, Senior Vice President, Programs, Easter Seals Hawaii ➢ John Kirkpatrick, Belt Collins Hawai i ➢ Chris Lau, Towne Realty ➢ Seng Lee, Gregory House ➢ Bobbie Jean Leithead, Director, Planning Department, County of Hawaii ➢ Wesley Lum, Ph.D., Director, Executive Office on Aging ➢ David Nakamura, Mutual Housing Association of Hawaii ➢ Sheryl Nelson, Executive Director, Statewide Independent Living Council ➢ Claudio Nigg, PhD, Associate Professor, Social & Behavioral Health Sciences, University of Hawaii Office of Public Health Studies ➢ Kayle Perez, Administrator, Child Welfare Services, Department of Human Services ➢ Jeffrey Proster, President, Bridgestone Homes Hawaii ➢ James Ramirez and Wendy K. Chong, Forest City Hawaii ➢ Mark Richards, Maryl Group Inc. ➢ Richard Riegles and Jesse Wu, Stanford Carr Developers ➢ Ray Soon, Solutions Pacific, LLC ➢ John Summers, Maui County- Planning Department Long Range ➢ Michael Tamanaha, Director, Arc of Hawaii ➢ Terry Nakano, Acting Director, Alcohol and Drug Abuse Division, Department of Health ➢ Martha Torney, Deputy Director, Department of Public Safety ➢ Maelyn Uyehara, Rider Levett Bucknall ➢ Michael Watkins, City and County of Honolulu, Department of Planning and Permitting ➢ Betty Wood, PHS Epidemiologist, Hawaii State Department of Health ➢ Gwen Yamamoto-Lau, Hawaii Community Reinvestment Corp. ➢ Steve Young, City and County of Honolulu, Department of Planning & Permitting Our Consultant Team included: ➢ Mike Sklarz, Fidelity Hansen Quality ➢ Scott Kimball, Hawaii Information Service Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page ii 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 CONTENTS SUMMARY: COUNTY OF HAWAII HOUSING CONDITIONS, 2011 ..................................IX FUNDAMENTAL HOUSING DATA ............................................................................................................IX CURRENT HOUSING SITUATION FOR HAWAII COUNTY RESIDENTS........................................................II HOUSINGDEMAND................................................................................................................................II HOUSING PREFERENCES......................................................................................................................III FINANCIAL QUALIFICATIONS..................................................................................................................III ISSUES................................................................................................................................................I I I INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................... 1 PURPOSE.............................................................................................................................................1 METHODS.............................................................................................................................................1 REPORTSTRUCTURE............................................................................................................................2 CURRENT HOUSING SITUATION IN HAWAII ..................................................................... 3 HOUSING SUPPLY IN HAWAI`I ................................................................................................................3 CurrentHousing Stock....................................................................................................................3 AvailableHousing Units............................................................................................................3 VacancyRates.........................................................................................................................4 Ageand Condition of Units.......................................................................................................4 HousingProduction.........................................................................................................................5 Building Permits and Housing Starts........................................................................................5 Changes to Housing Stock Characteristics..............................................................................6 HOUSING DEMAND IN HAWAI`I ...............................................................................................................7 Population and Growth Rates..........................................................................................................7 Componentsof Growth.............................................................................................................8 Households and Household Size....................................................................................................9 HouseholdConditions...................................................................................................................10 Homeownership......................................................................................................................10 Shelter Cost& Shelter-to-Income Ratios................................................................................11 Crowdingand Doubling Up.....................................................................................................11 Out-of-State Ownership..........................................................................................................12 CurrentDemand............................................................................................................................12 Raw, Final, and Effective Demand Estimates........................................................................12 Housing Preferences (Buyers and Renters)...........................................................................14 BuyerPreferences.........................................................................................................................14 RenterPreferences.......................................................................................................................15 QUALIFICATION FOR PURCHASE AND RENT..........................................................................................15 Households That Plan to Buy........................................................................................................15 Current Renters That Plan to Buy..........................................................................................17 Households That Plan to Rent.......................................................................................................18 HOUSINGPRICES................................................................................................................................20 Rents.............................................................................................................................................21 HOUSING FORECASTS, 2012-2030.................................................................................... 22 HOUSINGDEMAND..............................................................................................................................22 ModeledDemand..........................................................................................................................22 Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page in 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 HOUSINGSUPPLY...............................................................................................................................23 ModeledSupply.............................................................................................................................23 NEEDEDUNITS...................................................................................................................................24 TotalNew Units Needed................................................................................................................24 Typesof Units Needed..................................................................................................................27 Units Needed for Elderly Housing.................................................................................................28 HOUSING ISSUES................................................................................................................ 31 SUSTAINABLE AFFORDABILITY..............................................................................................................31 LOTSIZES..........................................................................................................................................32 HOUSING AND TRANSPORTATION.........................................................................................................34 Impact of Commuting on Housing Choice.....................................................................................34 Designing Housing with Distance in Mind.....................................................................................34 Housing and Transportation Alternatives......................................................................................35 SPECIAL NEEDS HOUSING IN HAWAIA ............................................................................ 39 Elderly and Frail Elderly Persons..................................................................................................39 Housing Needs and Challenges.............................................................................................39 ExitingOffenders...........................................................................................................................41 Housing Needs and Challenges.............................................................................................41 Persons with Alcohol or Drug Addictions.......................................................................................41 Housing Needs and Challenges.............................................................................................41 Persons with Disabilities................................................................................................................42 Housing Needs and Challenges.............................................................................................43 Persons with Developmental Disabilities.......................................................................................43 Housing Needs and Challenges.............................................................................................43 Persons with HIV/AIDS..................................................................................................................44 Housing Needs and Challenges.............................................................................................44 Persons with Severe Persistent Mental Illness..............................................................................45 Housing Needs and Challenges.............................................................................................45 Victims of Domestic Violence........................................................................................................46 Housing Needs and Challenges.............................................................................................46 EmancipatedFoster Youth............................................................................................................46 Housing Needs and Challenges.............................................................................................47 Special Needs Housing Summary.................................................................................................47 Special Needs Housing Issues......................................................................................................50 IssueSummary..............................................................................................................................51 HOMELESSNESS IN HAWAIA............................................................................................. 52 HomelessData..............................................................................................................................52 HiddenHomeless..........................................................................................................................54 Households at Risk of Homelessness...........................................................................................55 COMMENTS FROM HOUSING DEVELOPERS, 2011 ......................................................... 57 THE STATE OF THE MARKET................................................................................................................57 POLICYCHANGE.................................................................................................................................58 OtherViewpoints...........................................................................................................................59 Information from the Residents.....................................................................................................59 PLANNING IMPLICATIONS FOR 2012-2015....................................................................... 60 RESETTING THE CONTEXT...................................................................................................................60 Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page iv 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 HOUSING PLANNING—PUBLIC SECTOR...............................................................................................60 Past Planning Efforts: Spending...................................................................................................60 FederalAllocations.................................................................................................................61 StateAllocations.....................................................................................................................62 PlanningData................................................................................................................................62 AFFORDABLE HOUSING CONSTRUCTION ..............................................................................................64 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE HOUSING PLANNING STUDIES..........................................................65 APPENDIX: SUPPORT MATERIALS.................................................................................. 67 APPENDIXA: HOUSING TRENDS .........................................................................................................68 APPENDIX B: HOUSING DATA BY DISTRICT, COUNTY OF HAWAII, 2011................................................89 APPENDIX C: DETAILED DATA WORKSHEETS ......................................................................................99 APPENDIX D: LAND USE REGULATION INDEX.....................................................................................100 APPENDIX E: SPECIAL NEEDS HOUSING ...........................................................................................101 APPENDIX F: GLOSSARY ..................................................................................................................105 APPENDIX G: HAWAII STATE PLANNING ACT (SELECTED SECTIONS).................................................111 APPENDIX H: BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................113 Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page v 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. State of Hawaii, Changes in Housing Stock, 2003-2010........................................................7 Table 2. Total Population, 1990-2011....................................................................................................8 Table 3. Components of Population Change, Hawaii, 1990-2010........................................................9 Table 4. State of Hawaii, Total Households, 1990-2010....................................................................10 Table 5: Shelter-to-Income Ratio by County, 2011..............................................................................11 Table 6. Overcrowding, State and Counties of Hawaii, 1992, 1997, 2003, 2006 and 2011 ...............12 Table 7. Percent of Owners Who are Not Hawaii Residents, 2011....................................................12 Table 8. Interest in Moving to a New Home by County, 2006 and 2011 .............................................13 Table 9. Effective Demand by County, 1992, 1997, 2003, 2006 and 2011 .........................................14 Table 10a. Financial Qualification to Purchase a Single Family Home, Counties and State of Hawai i, 2011 ..............................................................................................................................................17 Table 10b. Financial Qualification to Purchase a Condominium, Counties and State of Hawai i, 2011 ......................................................................................................................................................17 Table 10c. Financial Qualification to Rent a Mufti-Family Unit, Counties and State of Hawaii, 2011 .19 Table 10d. Financial Qualification to Rent a Single Family Unit, Counties and State of Hawai i, 2011 ......................................................................................................................................................19 Table 11. Needed Housing Units by HUD Income Classification, Counties and State of Hawai i, 2012- 2016 ..............................................................................................................................................25 Table 12. Needed Housing Units by Housing Demand Survey Income Classification, Counties and State of Hawaii, 2012-2016..........................................................................................................26 Table 13. Needed Elderly Housing Units, Counties and State of Hawaii, 2012-2016........................30 Table 14. Sustainable Lease Considerations by County, 2006 and 2011 ...........................................32 Table 15. Current and Preferred Housing, Kauai Buyers, 2011 .........................................................33 Table 16. Current and Affordable Housing Payment, Kauai Movers, 2011........................................33 Table 17: Effect of Commuting on Housing Choice, 2011...................................................................36 Table 18: Commuter Household Characteristics, 2011 .......................................................................37 Table 19: Commuting and Preferred Housing Situation, 2011 ............................................................38 Table 20. Elderly Residents, State of Hawaii 1980-2030...................................................................40 Table 21. Housing Demand for Elderly Households, Forecast by County and State of Hawaii for 2030 ..............................................................................................................................................40 Table 22. Frail Elderly Households, Counties and State of Hawaii, 2011 ..........................................40 Table 23. Transitional and Supportive Housing Options for Exiting Offenders, 2011..........................42 Table 24. Dependence on Alcohol and/or Illicit Drugs, State and Counties of Hawaii, 2008.............42 Table 25. Disability, Employment, and Poverty Percentages, State and Counties of Hawaii, 2009 ..43 Table 26. Total Persons with Disabilities, State and Counties of Hawaii, 2009 .................................44 Table 27. Summary of Special Needs Households in Need of Supportive Housing, State of Hawaii 48 Table 28. Homeless PIT Counts, State and Counties of Hawaii, 2009-2011 .....................................53 Table 29. People Served by Outreach Program, State and Counties of Hawaii, 2008-2010.............53 Table 30. Homeless PIT and HMIS Counts, State and Counties of Hawai i, 2010.............................54 Table 31. Hidden Homeless Households, State and Counties of Hawai i, 2011 .................................54 Table 32. At-Risk and Hidden Homeless Households, State of Hawaii, 1992, 1997, 2003, 2006 and 2011 ..............................................................................................................................................55 Table 33. Responses if Forced to Move Out, State and Counties of Hawaii, 2011............................55 Table 34: Reasons for Not Buying a Home in Next Two Years, 2011.................................................59 Table 35: Federal Housing Expenditures in Hawaii, 2010..................................................................61 Table 36: Legislative Funding for Homeless and Affordable Housing, 2000 to 2010..........................62 Table 37. Types of Units Constructed, 2007-2010..............................................................................65 Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page vi 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 Table A-1. Characteristics of Housing Units, 1992, 1997, 2003, 2006, and 2011 ...............................68 Table A-2. Household Income Data, 1992, 1997, 2003, 2006, and 2011............................................69 Table A-3. Households at HUD Income Guidelines by County, 1992, 1997, 2003, 2006, and 2011 ..70 Table A-4a. Housing Unit Condition, Owned Units, 1992, 1997, 2003, 2006, and 2011 .....................71 Table A-4b. Housing Unit Condition, Rented Units, 1992, 1997, 2003, 2006, and 2011.....................72 Table A-5: Average Monthly Housing Cost, 1992, 1997, 2003, 2006, and 2011.................................73 Table A-6: Mortgage Payments by Years in Unit, 1992, 1997, 2003, 2006, and 2011........................74 Table A-7. Household Composition, 1992, 1997, 2003, 2006, and 2011 ............................................75 Table A-8. Household Crowding, 1992, 1997, 2003, 2006, and 2011 .................................................76 Table A-9. Shelter-to-Income Ratios, 1992, 1997, 2003, 2006, and 2011 ..........................................77 Table A-10. Shelter-to-Income Ratios by Years in Unit, 1992, 1997, 2003, 2006, and 2011 ..............78 Table A-11 a. Intention to Move, 1992, 1997, 2003, 2006, and 2011...................................................79 Table A-11 b. Preferred Location for Next Move, 1992, 1997, 2003, 2006, and 2011 .........................80 Table A-12. Tenancy Preference of Current Owners & Renters, 1992, 1997, 2003, 2006, and 2011 81 Table A-13a. Preferred Unit Type, Buyers, 1992, 1997, 2003, 2006, and 2011..................................82 Table A-13b. Preferred Unit Type, Renters, 1992, 1997, 2003, 2006, and 2011 ................................83 Table A-14a. Preferred Number of Bedrooms, Buyers, 1992, 1997, 2003, 2006, and 2011 ...............84 Table A-14b. Preferred Number of Bedrooms, Renters, 1992, 1997, 2003, 2006, and 2011 .............85 Table A-15a. Affordable Housing Cost for New Units, Buyers, 1992, 1997, 2003, 2006, and 2011 ...86 Table A-15b. Affordable Housing Cost for New Units, Renters, 1992, 1997, 2003, 2006, and 2011 -87 Table A-16. Preferred Location of New Housing Unit, 2011................................................................88 Table B-1. Current Housing Situation, Districts and County of Hawaii, 2011.....................................89 Table B-2. Current Housing Situation, Districts and County of Hawaii, 2011.....................................90 Table B-3. Current Financial Situation, Districts and County of Hawaii, 2011....................................91 Table B-4. Crowding and At Risk for Homelessness, Districts and County of Hawaii, 2011..............92 Table B-5. Interest in Moving, Districts and County of Hawaii, 2011..................................................92 Table B-6. Preferred Next Tenancy, Districts and County of Hawaii, 2011........................................93 Table B-7. Preferred and Acceptable Next Unit Characteristics - Buyers, Districts and County of Hawaii, 2011.................................................................................................................................94 Table B-8. Preferred and Acceptable Next Unit Characteristics - Renters, Districts and County of Hawaii, 2011.................................................................................................................................95 Table B-9. Preferred Location of Next Unit - Buyers and Renters, Districts and County of Hawai i, 2011 ..............................................................................................................................................96 Table B-10. Current and Affordable Housing Costs - Buyers and Renters, Districts and County of Hawaii, 2011.................................................................................................................................97 Table B-11. Financial Qualification for Purchase, Districts and County of Hawai i, 2011 ...................98 Table C-1. Home Ownership Rates, 1990-2011..................................................................................99 Table C-2 . Vacancy Rates, by State: 1986 to 2010............................................................................99 Table D-1. Wharton Residential Land Use Regulation Index by State..............................................100 Table E-1. Special Needs Population and Housing Summary, City & County of Honolulu, 2011 .....101 Table E-2. Special Needs Population and Housing Summary, County of Hawaii, 2011 ..................101 Table E-3. Special Needs Population and Housing Summary, County of Maui, 2011 ......................102 Table E-4. Special Needs Population and Housing Summary, County of Kauai, 2011....................102 Table E-5a. AMHD Statewide Current and Planned Housing Inventory, 2004-2012 ........................103 Table E-5b. AMHD Statewide Current and Planned Housing Inventory, 2004-2012 (continued) .....104 Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page vii 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. State of Hawaii, Number of Housing Units, 1990-2010.........................................................3 Figure 2. Rental and Homeowner Vacancy Rates, U.S. and State of Hawaii, 1986-2010...................4 Figure 3. Rental and Homeowner Vacancy Rates, U.S. and State of Hawaii, 2000-2010...................4 Figure 4. State of Hawai i, Building Permits Authorized, 1990-2010.....................................................6 Figure 5. Homeownership Rates, U.S. and State of Hawaii, 1985-2010...........................................10 Figure 6: State and Counties of Hawaii, Homeownership Rates, 1990-2010 ....................................11 Figure 7. Housing Prices in Honolulu, 1980 to 2011 ...........................................................................20 Figure 8. Housing Prices in Six High-Price Markets, 1985 to 2010.....................................................20 Figure 9. Average Rents, Counties and State of Hawaii, 2003-2011 .................................................21 Figure 10. Average Rents in Five High-Price Markets, 2009-2011 .....................................................21 Figure 11. Housing Unit Sales, State of Hawaii, 1980-2030 ..............................................................22 Figure 12. New Construction, State of Hawaii, 1985-2030.................................................................23 Figure 13: Summary of 2010 Public Housing Policy Goals.................................................................63 Figure 14: Affordable Housing Units Constructed, 2000-2010............................................................64 Figure 15: Recommendations for Future Housing Planning Studies...................................................66 Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page viii 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 SUMMARY: COUNTY OF HAWAI'I HOUSING CONDITIONS, 2011 The objectives of the Study have developed over the past 19 years. Since the Housing Policy Between 1990 and 2006, the housing stock used Study series began in 1992, HHPS has by Hawaii County households dropped from produced a single, comprehensive, and widely 86.0 to 78.9 percent. As is true for the other accepted compendium of data on Hawaii's counties, the percentage of the total housing housing market accessible to all parties in the stock on the Big Island that is available to local business of providing housing for Hawaii's residents soared to 93.0 percent. people. Since 1997, HHPS has also included some form of housing forecast to support Households: The number of households, or planning for housing development across the occupied housing units', in Hawaii is a strong State. Over the years, individual iterations of the indicator of housing stock available to Hawaii HHPS have investigated specific topics of residents. The total number of households on interest to Hawaii's housing development the Big Island grew 6 percent in the past four community, some of which have remained as years, to 67,096 total households in 2010. The part succeeding studies and some that have average household size also increased during been replaced by issues of greater interest to that same time period, from 2.68 to 2.76 persons planners and developers. In 2011, the interests per household. of HHPS stakeholders expanded to include a greater interest in alternative housing production Home Ownership: Housing stock growth from procedures, the interfaces between housing and 1990 to 2006 fueled increasing home ownership transportation, and housing for special needs rates across the State. The percent of occupied groups. units that were owner occupied rose from 61 percent in 1990 to 67 percent in 2006. The growth rate was slow at first, rising three points FUNDAMENTAL HOUSING DATA between 1900 and 2000, one point between 2000 and 2003, and then another point in the Population: Between 1990 and 2000, the last three years. Since 2006, that trend has County of Hawaii's population grew at a rate of leveled off. In 2011, 66 percent of the County's 2.0 percent per year. In the first six years of the units were owner occupied. present decade, the county growth rate was 2.1 percent per year. Hawaii County was the only Out-of-State Ownership: In 2011, 12 percent one of Hawaii's counties that had higher growth of Hawaii County's single-family housing units rates in 2000-2006 than in the nineties. The and 49 percent of the condominium units were population growth rate climbed to 2.3 percent per owned by persons from outside of the State. year between 2006 and 2010 —tied with Maui for highest in the State over the last four years. Housing Prices: The most salient characteristic of Hawaii's housing market in the last four years Housing Stock: The total number of housing has been a slow decline in the prices. Home units in Hawaii County at the beginning of 2011 resale priceS2 statewide fell in Hawaii from 1990 was about 83,325 units. Since 1990, the average annual growth rate for total units has 1 Throughout the analysis and reporting of data for HHPS been higher than the population growth rate. 2011, we have followed the U.S. Census convention of Hawaii housing stock grew by 2.5 percent per defining households and occupied housing units as year between 1990 and 2000. Between 2000 identical. The number of occupied housing units, or households, is equal to the total housing stock minus and 2006, the growth rose to 2.9 percent per units held for use by non-residents and vacant units. year. In the past four years, the annual growth 2 New unit sales prices are unavailable. They are rate was down slightly at 2.7 percent. expected to be higher than for resale prices, and to vary according to the same patterns as resale prices. Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page ix 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 through 1998, and then rose at an increasing and 2003. The depressed housing market of the rate from 1998 through 2005. In 2006, sales nineties held prices and rents in check while the prices continued to rise, but at a slower pace. In good economy of the late nineties raised 2006, the median sales prices in the County of household incomes. Between 2003 and 2006, Hawaii peaked at $421,250 for SFD and rapidly rising housing costs pushed the shelter- $426,500 for condominium units. Since then, the to-income ratio back to its 1997 level. median price has fallen to $278,800 for SFD and $275,000 for condominiums. The situation improved a bit during the past four years. In 2006, just over 49 percent of County Average shelter costs for renter households in households had shelter-to-income ratios less Hawaii rose by 20 percent between 2006 and than .30. That percentage was down in 2011. 2011. This increase was half the amount In 2006, the percent of households that were observed between 2003 and 2006. paying 40 percent or more of their income on shelter was 26 percent. That figure fell to 25 percent in 2011. The period between 2006 and CURRENT HOUSING SITUATION FOR 2011 was marked by fairly stable or slightly rising HAWAII COUNTY RESIDENTS housing costs and by rising unemployment and substantial decreases in household incomes. Among the County's 67,096 households in 2010, about 70 percent were homeowners and 94 Other conditions in Hawaii households have not percent of them owned their property fee simple. changed much as a result of recent changes in Eighty-seven percent of all households were Hawaii's housing market. About the same located in single-family detached dwelling units. number of people (84%) rated the condition of Five percent were renting apartments, and an their units as excellent or satisfactory. approximately equal number were living in Crowding3, which dropped from 19 percent in condominium or townhome units, either owned 1992 to 6.6 percent in 2006, is back up to 8.6 or rented. Most of the rest were in multifamily percent in 2011. Eleven percent of households units. The median monthly mortgage payment in the County of Hawaii were doubled up in was $1,573 a month and the median rent was 2011". $1,039 per month. Hawaii household incomes were up slightly HOUSING DEMAND since 2006. The Census Bureau reported Hawaii County's median household income in The Housing Demand Survey measures demand 2010 at $53,828. The current Housing Demand as interest in moving to a new housing unit, Survey found similar medians. U.S. Department whether to buy or to rent. In 2011, 42 percent of of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) all Hawaii County households expressed a income guidelines express income in terms of desire to move to a new home in the near future. the median household income for each County in This remained unchanged since 2006. The rest Hawaii, adjusted for household size. HUD said they did not intend to move in the reported an increase in median income for the foreseeable future. County of Hawaii from $55,300 to $68,700 between 2006 and 2011. It Is also necessary to consider how Hawaii 3 Crowding is a measure of the number of persons per County households are doing relative to high room. A household is considered "crowded" if there is housing costs and general inflation. Shelter-to- more than one person per room. income ratios (SI-Ratio) measure the percent of 4 Households occupied by two or more families or groups a household's monthly income that is paid out for of persons who are not related by birth, marriage, or shelter (mortgage or rent payments). In Hawaii adoption are considered "doubled-up". The figure may include those who are in mufti-generation households by County, SI-ratios dropped steadily between 1992 choice. Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page ii 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 About 22 percent of those who intended to move the past. Eighty percent of all potential renters wanted to move to a home outside of Hawaii, up needed three or fewer bedrooms and 92 percent notably from 13 percent in 2006. If we subtract said they could accept one (61%) or two (31%) those households from the total who want to bathrooms. Just over one-third of potential move, the resulting measure of "effective renters (34%) said they needed less than 1,000 demand" indicates pressure on the housing square feet of space and 20 percent each market over the next several years. Effective reported the need for 1,000 to 1,200 or 1,200 to demand was equal to 26 percent in 2011. It fell 1,500 square feet of space. from 40 percent in 1992 to 35 percent in 1997 and held at 35 percent in 2003. In 2006, it rose slightly to 37 percent and has presently returned FINANCIAL QUALIFICATIONS to its 2003 level. Several indicators of financial qualifications of Hawaii households are assembled in each HOUSING PREFERENCES iteration of the HHPS. In 2011, we found that 55 percent of households planning to purchase their Preferences for new housing unit characteristics next home own their current homes and 37 have changed little over the past 15 years. percent have owned their current unit for more Among households that want to move, 51 than five years. About 18 percent of them have percent want to own their next unit. In 2011, at least $5,000 in savings or investments, but however, about eight percent of those who want only 9 percent said they could gather $60,000 as to buy were not sure they could afford it and an a down payment. additional 16 percent indicated that having to rent their next home was a definite possibility. Among potential buyers, 41 percent had That would drop purchase incidence to about 40 household incomes in excess of 140 percent of percent, less than the current homeownership the County median. Incomes at this level may rate and significantly less than the 65 percent mean that the monthly mortgage payments identified in 2006. would be more manageable than the down payment. More than half of the potential buyers Buyer Preferences: Most potential buyers (52%) said they could afford to pay $2,000 or (87%) wanted single-family homes purchased in more each month. Among current homeowners, fee. About 30 percent said they would like two- one-third were already paying more than $1,700 bedroom units, 35 percent said they wanted at a month. Among renters who wanted to buy, least three bedrooms, and 25 percent would nearly as many (31%) were paying more than prefer four or more bedrooms. The preferred $1,700 a month for shelter. number of bedrooms was higher than in the past, potentially due to the increase in average household size. The same was true for ISSUES bathrooms. More than 91 percent of buyers said they would need fewer than three bathrooms. HHPS 2011 data are rich and comprehensive. Almost half (49%) reported that they could live They can be applied to a broad range of housing with less than 1,000 square feet. An additional issues and planning alternatives. Some issues 21 percent required 1,000 to 1,200 square feet that have been addressed at this point are briefly and slightly less than one-quarter (24%) said summarized below. they needed more than 1,500 square feet. Renter Preferences: Among those who wanted to rent, 74 percent wanted single-family homes. This was notably higher than the 56 percent who desired a SFD in 2006. The 2011 renters, too, were more willing to accept smaller units than in Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page in 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 Sustainable Lease: A sustainable lease is a average travel time for daily commuters is 29 leasehold arrangement that maintains property in minutes one way. This equates to nearly one an affordable price range. They are of interest in hour of travel time per day. Commuters were Hawaii because: (a) they allow government to categorized as Short (0-15 minutes), Moderate maintain affordable housing developments as (16-35 minutes), or Long (>35 minutes) affordable over long periods of time; (b) Commuters. sustainable leases on government land can reduce development costs and produce Fourteen percent of households in the County of affordable units for households with incomes Hawaii include one or more members who use near the median for the County; and (c) they are public transportation to get from home to work or generally more viable for prospective buyers school three or more times each week. Thirty- than conventional leases. Any sustainable one percent of households reported the desire to property arrangement requires limitations on be closer to bus stops when they move to their ownership and resale. The property must be next home in order to take advantage of the owner occupied, must be sold back to the public transit system. Households using public sponsoring agency, and there is a ceiling on the transportation are disproportionately renters and resale price. Other aspects of the ownership parents with children or multi-family households. agreement usually offset these features. Hawaii households were also presented with the Study results showed that there is a role for following scenario in order to assess the sustainable leases in developing affordable importance of proximity to work or school when housing for Hawai i. Once they understand how making decisions concerning the location of a a sustainable lease works, between 57 and 78 future residence: percent of households will be willing to consider Now, think about having a choice between two of a sustainable lease to get into their own new homes, both are exactly the same except homes, depending upon the terms of the lease for the price and location. For the first home you (see Table 14). could pay the price you wanted and travel a More important, sustainable leases appealed to shorter amount of time than you currently travel to work each day (and, thereby, reduce the buyers who most need them. Sustainable amount of time and cost leases appealed to renters and potential buyers commute to work who had no down payment. They appealed to For the second home, you u could pay $20,000 0 crowded households, to those with shelter-to- less and travel twice the time to work. If you had income ratios between 30 and 40 percent, and to a choice, would you choose the home with the prospective homebuyers with incomes less than shorter travel time or the lower purchase price? 120 percent of the County median income. In response, 43 percent of County of Hawaii Finally, the sustainable lease was attractive to households chose the home that, although the households that included "hidden homeless" cost was somewhat higher, would reduce their persons. daily travel time. Transportation: Respondents to the HHPS Housing Demand Survey who plan to move were asked about the number and type of vehicles used by members of their households, how many days that they commute each week, commute times, use of public transportation, and the importance of proximity to school or work. More than three-quarters of respondents (77%) said they commute further than one mile at least 4 days each week. In the County of Hawaii, the Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page iv ©SMS, Inc. November,2011 INTRODUCTION PURPOSE 2. Rental Housing Study: A study of rental unit advertisements, prices, and characteristics The objectives of the Hawai'i Housing Planning from January 2006 through May 2011. The Study (HHPS) have developed over the last 19 rent study was expanded this year to include years. Since the HHPS series began in 1992, data from the ACS, the Office of Housing and HHPS has produced a single, comprehensive Urban Development's (HUD) Fair Market compilation of data on Hawaii's housing market Rents, and other sources. accessible to all parties engaged in providing housing for Hawaii's people. Since 1997, HHPS 3. Production Data: A set of interviews with has also included some form of housing forecast housing producers to enhance understanding to support planning for housing development of issues related to housing development and across the State. Over the years, individual a review of County data on scheduled iterations of the HHPS have investigated specific housing unit production aimed at developing topics of interest to Hawaii's housing reliable estimates of short-run housing development community, some of which have production. remained as part of succeeding studies and some that have been replaced by issues of 4. Housing for Special Needs Groups Study: greater interest to planners and developers. In This study included a set of stakeholder 2011, the attention of HHPS stakeholders interviews with persons who work with expanded to include a greater interest in special needs groups and understand their alternative housing production procedures, the housing needs, as well as hard data on the interfaces between housing and transportation, special needs populations, including their and housing for special needs groups. numbers, housing needs, available housing units, and future prospects. METHODS 5. Housing Demand Survey: A statewide survey of more than 5,000 households to The HHPS 2011 utilizes data from six data measure current housing conditions, collection and analysis sources: expectations to move to a new unit, new unit preferences, financial qualifications for 1. Housing Stock Inventory: An inventory of all purchase or rent, and demographic housing units in the State at the end of 2010. characteristics of household members. In 2011, the inventory was expanded to include U.S. Decennial Census data and 6. Hawaii Housing Model: Changes made to data taken from the American Community the Model included updates to Hawai'i Survey (ACS)5. Inventory data are the housing conditions, prices, and sales in order foundation for counting and describing to permit forecasting of housing unit needs housing stock and are fundamental to the by income group through the year 2030. Hawaii Housing Model. Each of these project elements is described in detail in the HHPS 2011 Technical Report. 5 For those unfamiliar with the American Community In 2011, the study team also reviewed housing Survey, an excellent description appears on the U.S. plans and production, government spending on Census website housing, and comparisons with housing data in htto://www.census.gov/acs/www/about the survey/ame other states and municipalities. rican community survey/ Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 1 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 REPORT STRUCTURE Presentation of the HHPS findings also takes a slightly different approach in 2011. We begin as usual with the description of current housing conditions in Hawaii: demand, supply, and pricing of residential units over the last two decades or so. A separate section will discuss housing issues this year. That is followed by a section on housing forecasts that briefly presents forecasts for demand and supply and concentrates on the most requested output of the study called "Needed Units', the number of additional units required to house our people from 2011 through 2030. The last section of the report covers planning implications for the next five years. An appendix presents support materials for major elements of the report 6 6 Additional support materials have been delivered separately as other reports in the series. Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 2 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 CURRENT HOUSING SITUATION IN HAWAI'I The study of Hawaii's housing market and housing Figure 1. State of Hawaii, Number of Housing needs begins with a review of the basic elements Units, 1990-2010 relevant to housing planning. The report covers 600 ,3 Not Available ■Vacant 18,000 those issues in three major sections — housing ■Occupied ■Added Units 16,000 supply, housing demand, and qualification for _ 500 purchase and rent. 0 14,000 R x 400 12,000 3 c HOUSING SUPPLY IN HAWAH 10,000 a` 3 300 a It is appropriate to begin a study of housing in S 8,000� N Q Hawaii by looking at the housing stock itself. In 'o zoo 6,000 this section, we examine our current housing stock, w review housing production over the last several a 100 4,000 years, and discuss a few issues of interest related 2,000 to housing production these days. 1O C� 0 0O'O'L'LO b'OO h'LO 4` Current Housing Stock Source: Hawaii Housing Model, 2011. According to the U.S. Census for 2010, there were 519,508 total housing units in Hawaii last year 7. Despite the very smooth appearance of the Some of those units were used for purposes other growth in housing stock, the number of units than housing residents — hotel and other visitor added each year ranges from a low of 3,500 to a accommodations, second homes for seasonal use, high of about 11,000 units. The change and a few units used for housing agricultural generally reflects the activity in the housing workers. The remaining 481,026 housing units market over the last two decades, with higher (92.6%) were available to house Hawai is growth corresponding to higher activity. residents. Of those available units, about 25,668 The number of units unavailable to the local were vacant. That is, they were available for housing market has increased steadily during residents' use, but not occupied because they were this period. The growth in seasonal units, which on the market for sale or rent, or had been includes second homes and temporary visitor purchased or leased but were not yet occupied. The remaining 455,338 units are Hawaii's residences d is largely a phenomenon of occupied housing units.a By convention, that the last two decades. In 1980, Hawaii's housing number is exactly equal to the number of stock consisted of 1.8 percent seasonal units households in Hawaii. and the State ranked 35` In the nation 9. In 1990, the State ranked 20`h, with seasonal units accounting for about 3.3 percent of the total. By Available Housing Units 2000, Hawaii ranked 10`h among the 50 states with 5.6 percent of its housing stock reserved for Figure 1 shows our best estimate of the State of seasonal or occasional use. We fully expect Hawaii housing stock for the last 20 years — total, another significant rise in 201010. Second available, and occupied units. 9 U.S. Census Bureau, Housing & Household Economic See Table IA-1 of the Housing Inventory Report for further Statistics Division,Vacation Homes, December 2, 2004. details $See Table 4 for additional detail 10 This data is not yet available from Census 2010. Hawari Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 3 ©SMS, Inc. November,2011 homes played an important role in the early vacancy rates in Hawaii reached their lowest point in years of the last period of rapidly increasing the past 25 years, indicating that rental units were in housing prices and contract rents (often referred very high demand and short supply. The 2010 to as a run-up). TVRs became involved in vacancy rate for rental units in the U.S. was 102 Hawai`i's community life and local housing percent. The rate for the State of Hawaii was 8.1 politics during the late years of the run-up. TVRs percent. have become contentious again in 2011 as our Figure 3. Rental and Homeowner Vacancy Rates, slow sales and stagnant-priced market lead local U.S. and State of Hawaii,2000-2010 homeowners to seek alternatives to selling the 12.0 family homestead. Visitor rentals provide a —United States-Rental —Hawall-Rental —United Stater-Homeowner —Hawall-Homeowner positive income stream, but sometimes face 10.0 opposition from neighbors". s.o The number of vacant and available units has also changed with the market and had a 60 tendency to increase as a percentage of total units over the last two decades. 60 2.0 Vacancy Rates o.o In Hawaii, the vacancy rate for ownership units 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Zoos 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 was 0.8 percent in 1990, 0.9 percent in 2000, Source: Housing Vacancy and Homeownership Study, and 1.9 percent in 2010. Rental vacancy rates 2000-2010. for 1990, 2000, and 2010 were 6.6 percent, 5.3 percent, and 8.1 percent, respectively. Age and Condition of Units Figure 2. Rental and Homeowner Vacancy Rates, There are housing units in Hawaii that are in U.S. and State of Hawaii, 1986-2010 need of refurbishing. Compared with other States, however, the condition of Hawaii's —United States-Rental —Hawaii-Rental housing stock is not a serious problem. —United States-Homeowner —Hawaii-Homeowner a.o 10.2 Across the State, the median year built for our 10.0 housing stock in 2009 was 197812 and the 8.0 A A 8.1 median age of all housing units was 32 years. Median unit age differs little across the State: 35 6.0 years for the City and County of Honolulu, 25 for 4.0 Maui County, 28 for Hawaii County, and about z.b 27 for Kauai County. The national figure was 34 2.0 years. 0.0 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 There are many large housing markets across the nation with much older housing stocks. The Source: Housing Vacancy and Homeownership Study, median age of housing units in Boston and San 1985-2010. Francisco is 70 years. It is 63 years in Chicago The vacancy rate among rental units in the State of and 62 years in Hartford, New York, and Detroit. Hawaii has been notably lower than the national average for a quarter of a century. In 2005, rental The condition of Hawai`i's housing units as measured by the Census is relatively good. tt "City proposal takes aim at illegal vacation rentals," Honolulu Star-Advertiser, 2 August 2011. 12 American Community Survey, 2009. Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 4 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 However, Census figures only identify units Our smaller housing units are also more without suitable plumbing and kitchen facilities. crowded than in other places. Nationally, the Statewide less than one percent of our units average Census crowding rate was 3.2 percent have incomplete plumbing facilities and only 1.6 in 2009. ACS reported that 8.5 percent of percent had incomplete kitchen facilities in 2009. Hawaii housing units were crowded by the The figures differed very little across the Census definition of more than one person per counties. Those figures get steadily better over room. For the counties, the figures were 8.7 time, and describe a housing stock in good percent on Oahu, 7.6 percent in Hawaii County, condition. In the Housing Demand Survey 9.0 percent in the County of Maui, and 7.9 conducted this year, about 76 percent of all percent on Kauai. Among the markets we household respondents rated the condition of reviewed, only Orange County had a higher their units excellent (32%) or satisfactory (45%). crowding rate at 9.4 percent. As usual, renters were more likely than owners to be critical of the condition of their units. Housing Production Ratings did not differ significantly across counties. Measuring the annual production of new housing units has been a problem for HHPS from the There are some areas where housing is getting beginning. This year we have new information quite old and its condition is deteriorating. on the subject. Several stakeholders we interviewed mentioned the Mo'ili'ili area in Honolulu as a candidate for Building Permits and Housing Starts redevelopment in the near future. That was true, they told us because the type of residential The number of authorized building permits in housing in the area was inappropriate for the each county has been part of HHPS since 1992. location, zoning, and land values in the area, and The actual number of units added to the housing not because of the condition of the units. stock each year has been more difficult to Our housing units are smaller than in most other estimate. This year SMS used the Hawaii American housing markets. For the State as a Housing Model and new information from the whole, the average number of rooms for housing Census and ACS to upgrade this analysis. units in 2009 was 4.6. It differed little across the The number of housing units added each year is State: 4.7 in the City & County of Honolulu, 4.6 a function of the number of building permits in Hawaii and Kauai Counties, and 4.0 in Maui authorized by county planning departments each County. Nationally, the average housing unit year. Not surprisingly, authorized permits rise had 5.5 rooms in 2009 (ACS), making Hawaii's and fall with the local housing market. In times units some of the smallest in the nation. Some of high market activity, landowners and of the larger and more expensive markets in the developers respond to higher demand and country also had lower room counts -- New York higher prices by supplying new units. (4.0), San Francisco (4.2), Boston (4.5) and Seattle (4.5). Housing units have been getting smaller over time, but some say they are better constructed as building codes get stronger. As one of our stakeholders put it, "On Oahu you have major redevelopment efforts and in the other counties you have a lot of new construction." Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 5 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 From 2003 through 2006, the County Planning data taken from authorized building permits. Departments authorized about 36,700 new Therefore, the housing stock estimates we are residential units. In the following four years, only using are partially defined by the permit counts. about 17,150 units were authorized 13. Changes to Housing Stock Figure 4. State of Hawaii, Building Permits Characteristics Authorized, 1990-2010 12,000 We expect the unit mix produced each year to fluctuate with housing demand. Data based on 10,000 A the housing inventory developed for HHPS 2011 (Table 1) show changes to the housing stock for 8,000 periods covered by the last two HHPS reports. 6,000 Approximately the same number of housing units were added to Hawai'i's housing stock between 4,000 2007 and 2010 (24,645 units) as were added in the previous four years (22,166 units). However, 2,000 the units added in the last four years include —Added Units —Permits more rental and multi-family units. 0 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2olo The larger number of rental units included newly constructed rental units, units rented out Source: Hawaii Housing Model, 2011. Building permits because they could not be sold in a down taken from U.S. Census, added units calculated from housing stock annual estimates. market, and units transferred from the visitor industry when the visitor counts fell after 2007. Figure 4 shows that added units generally lag In years past, the number of newly constructed authorized permits by at least a year. In part, rental units would have been negligible. In the this is as expected, reflecting the time needed to past four years, however, the public sector was bring units to market. The finding is inconsistent able to add substantial numbers of affordable with the often-heard claims that supply lags multi-family rentals (see Table 37). demand by substantial margins in Hawaii. Of course, the nature of those claims refers not to The number of condominium units in the stock the lag between authorization and build-out, but remained fairly stable, increasing by about 25 the time required to get infrastructure built and percent in both periods. The number of new permits authorized. leasehold units, whether single-family or multi- family, dropped dramatically in the last four These data may underestimate the lag, however. years. With the exception of DHHL homes, new Housing stock estimates (and, therefore, the for sale units were almost exclusively fee simple. number of added units) are in part an artifact of methods used to produce the Census estimates. It appears that the U.S. Census Bureau, in developing annual housing unit estimates, uses 13 All four counties use some version of a Certificate of Completion (COC). Because those documents are not required for occupancy in residential structures, their number is generally considered to be an underestimate of actual production in any given year. The Tax Map Key (TMK) system, while beset with its own sources of error, is generally considered a more accurate source of annual production than is the sum of COCs issued over 12 months. Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 6 ©SMS, Inc. November,2011 Table 1. State of Hawaii, Changes in Housing Between 1980 and 1990, Hawaii's population Stock, 2003.2010 grew from 964,660 to 1,113,491 for an average 2003to 2007to Percent annual increase of about 1.4 percent per year. Characteristic 2006 2010 Change Table 2 shows population increases since 1990. Estimated Units Added 22,166 24,645 11% Unit Type During the nineties, Hawai is population growth single-family 20,493 18,618 -9% rate was lower than in the previous decade. The multi-family 1,673 6,027 260% average annual rate of growth dropped from 1.4 to 0.88 percent. From 200 through 2006 Regime population growth increased, principally by net Single unit 20 18,618 -9% in-migration, to 1.23 percent per year. Condominium 5,5530 30 6,,270 270 13% Other -3,857 -243 -94% According to the U.S. Census, population growth Purchase type-SFD for the State of Hawaii was even higher form Fee Simple 19,468 20,592 6% 2006 through 2010 than it was in the first part of Leasehold 1,025 -1,974 -293% the decade. The average annual growth rate Purchase type-Condo rose from 1.23 percent to 1.47 percent. Fee Simple 14,745 12,226 -17% Leasehold -9,215 -5,956 -35% In the years since the last HHPS, population Source: HHPS Inventory Report, 2011. a. Units built growth returned to pre-1990 levels for most of between July 1, 2002 and July 1,2006. b. Units built the State. During the nineties, the population of between July 1, 2006 and July 1, 2010. See"Years" in Hawaii grew SIOWI consistent with an economic Glossary for definitions of time periods used in this report. g y downturn that lasted nearly the entire decade. As expected, the return to reasonable levels of HOUSING DEMAND IN HAWAII economic growth after 2000 resulted in an increase in population. Changes in demand are grounded in population growth and household formation, changes in the Population growth patterns differed for each of number of families, and income distributions. the four counties. The City and County of Most of these items are accessible in published Honolulu's population growth has been slower data sources. The details of housing demand than in other counties, rising by less than one require deeper investigation, however, and that percent per year until the last half of the most has been the purpose of Housing Demand res-cent decade. Surveys since 1992. All of these and other factors are covered in this section of the report. In Maui County, the growth rates were very high during the nineties and then dropped a bit in the years 2000 through 2006. Since 2006, the Population and Growth Rates average annual growth rate has been a bit higher at 2.22 percent per year. The need for housing in Hawaii begins with population growth. Population grows when In Hawaii County, the pattern of growth was natural increase (the excess of births over similar to Maui's until 2003. In the period 2003 deaths) and net in-migration combine and when through 2006 Hawaii County's growth rate new households are formed from older ones. jumped to 2.68 percent per year, the highest When the number of households grows, new growth rate in the State. The county population housing units are required to house the m14. growth rate was 2.39 percent in the last half of the last decade, still the highest in the State. 14 Standard demographic texts cover this topic in greater detail and the book by Imhoff, etaL in the bibliography Tourism, Research and Economic Analysis Division covers its impact on housing modeling. The Hawaii reports figures on the components of population growth Department of Business, Economic Development and in Hawai i. See Hawaii Data Book, annual. Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 7 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 Kauai County had a moderate growth rate (1.32 growth. The population aged, birth rates slowed, percent per year) during the nineties, slowed a and deaths exceeded births in all counties. bit during the next six years, and has returned to a 1.70 percent per annum rate in the last part of Net migration was up more than 600 percent. the last decade. The State lost 9,804 more residents than it gained during the nineties. In the last decade, Table 2. Total Population, 1990-2011 however, we had 55,646 more people move to City s County County Hawaii than left the State. State of County of of of County Year Hawai'i Honolulu Hawai'i Maui ofKaua'i The nineties' recession slowed growth in Hawaii 1990 1,113,491 838,534 121,572 101,709 51,676 by maintaining natural increase and dampening 1992 1,158,613 863,959 131,630 108,585 54,439 1997 1,211,640 886,711 144,445 122,772 57,712 in-migration. During the growth years 2002 1999 1,210,300 878,906 146,970 126,160 58,264 through 2007, natural increase seems to have 2000 1,211,566 875,061 149,095 128,899 58,511 slowed and the number Of people moving t0 the 2003 1,239,298 888,026 156,340 134,871 60,061 2004 1,252,782 894,406 160,170 137,136 61,070 Aloha State expanded notably. Even during the 2005 1,266,117 900,340 164,887 139,131 61,759 last three years of the decade, when the 2006 1,284,954 910,913 168,925 142,290 62,826 economic situation was reversed, indications are 2007 1,303,791 921,487 172,964 145,448 63,892 2008 1,322,627 932,060 177,002 148,607 64,958 that the influx of new residents continued. 2009 1,341,464 942,634 181,041 151,924 65,865 Between 2002 and 2007, most new residents 2010 1 1,360,301 1 953,207 1 185,079 1 154,924 67,091 Were from other U.S. states. After 2007, Average Annual Percent Change' IlOWOVer, the percentage of new Hawaii 1990-2000 0.88% 0.44% 2.26% 2.67% 1.32% p ercen g 2000-2003 0.76% 0.49% 1.62% 1.54% 0.88% residents from other countries increased 2003-2006 1.23% 0.86% 2.68% 1.83% 1.53% significantly, especially from Micronesia 15. 2006-2010 1.47% 1.16% 2.39% 2.22% 1.70% 2000-2010 1.23% 0.89% 2.41% 2.02% 1.47% Sources: U.S. Census 1990, 2000, and 2010, ACS 2003- This kind of growth pattern will tend to increase 2009. demand at the lower end of the market. a average annual increase calculated as r=((Pb/ PQ )An)-1. Immigrants from the Pacific tend to have fewer Note that Census definitions are based on the population as economic resources, less education, and fewer of July 1 each year. See "Years" in the Glossary for job skills than the host population. It takes time detailed definitions of time periods used in this report. for them to gain the economic resources needed Components of Growth to compete in Hawaii's housing market. Going beyond the simple growth patterns of the last twenty years in Hawaii provides some interesting results that are relevant to housing issues. Table 3 summarizes growth factors for the two decades. Net migration for Hawaii is the number of people moving to the State minus the number of people moving Out of the State. Natural increase Is 5 For 2000, See American FactFinder2, Table PCT043, births minus deaths. Net change is the Sex by Place of Birth by Citizenship Status. For recent population in the final year of a decade minus figures, American Factfinder2, Table S0201: Selected the population in the final year of the previous Population Profile 2008-2010, Acs. For analysis and p p y p comment, see Pobutsky, Ann M., Dmitry Krupltsky, and decade. Seiji Yamada, Micronesian Migrant Health Issues in Hawai'i Part 2: An assessment of health, language and After 2000, Hawaii's population grew faster than key social determinants of Health, California Journal of In the nineties. That Was true In all counties Health Promotion, 2009,Vol., 7, Issue 2, pp. 32-55, and except Maui, which experienced its growth spurt Essoyan, Susan, Homeless in plain sight: Shelters see before 2000. Across the state, the years Jump in Pacific Islanders and Micronesian and Marshallese immigrants have a special claim to U.S. between 2000 and 2010 saw slower population services, February 16, 2010. Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 8 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 Table 3. Components of Population Change, growth, but did not quite reach the level seen in Hawaii, 1990-2010 the years before 2000. Natural I New Net Increase Mi ration Chan a Data in Table 4 also reflect the uncertainties of 1990 to 2000 ACS estimates of population and households in State 113,112 -9,804 103,308 the middle years of the last decade 16. We might Honolulu 86,733 46,808 39,925 expect, however, that the initial upswing in employment and housing sales between 2002 Hawaii 10,477 17,883 28,360 and 2007 reduced pent-up demand and Kauai 4,601 2,685 7,286 decreased doubling-up over the same period. Maui 11,301 16,436 27,737 That would result in smaller households. 2000 to 2010 State 93,118 55,646 148,764 As the period of rapidly increasing housing Honolulu 68,958 8,093 77,051 prices ended and the recession began, the Hawaii 9,914 26,488 36,402 opposite trends prevailed, leading to an increase Kauai 3,517 5,111 5,111 in household size once again. Maui 10,729 15,954 15,954 Percent Difference State -17.7% 667.6% 44.0% Honolulu -20.5% 117.3% 93.0% Hawaii -5-4% 48.1% 28.4% Kauai -23.6% 90.4% 18.4% Maui -5.1% -2.9% -3.8% Source: DBEDT Data Book, 2009, Table 1.59 and 2010, Table 1.56. calculated as (PQ - Pb )/ Pb )* 100. Census definitions are based on the population on July 1 each year. Households and Household Size Population growth contributes to housing demand through the filter of household formation. We generally measure household formation in terms of the increase in households as reported by the U.S. Census. Table 4 shows household growth and average household size for the State of Hawaii and each of its four counties. Data are shown for selected years between 1990 and 2010. We expect the growth pattern for households to be very similar to the growth pattern for the 'S ACS was first conducted in 2003 and covered the City population (Table 2). The tables suggest a and County of Honolulu only. Coverage was expanded to the Counties of Hawaii and Maui in 2005. In all slightly different pattern for households. years, separate estimates were developed for the State as a whole. The estimate for Kauai County is taken as Population growth was relatively slow during the the ACS State estimate, minus estimates for the other nineties and increased a bit during the last three counties. The statistical accuracy of Acs g improves every year, especially with the advent of three- decade, largely in response to economic growth. and five-year aggregations after 2007. Nevertheless, The average household size fell off a bit by 2003 estimates for the County of Kauai remained unstable and a bit more by 2006. It then resumed faster throughout the past decade. Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 9 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 Table 4. State of Hawaii, Total Households, 1990- again during the last housing market boom. The 2010 rate has been drifting down since 2007. State of County County County County Of of of Figure 5. Homeownership Rates, U.S. and Hawaii Honolulu Hawaii of Maui Kauai State of Hawaii, 1985-2010 1990 389,810 281,683 48,253 42,261 17,613 75.0 1992 411,494 290,571 49,394 51,578 19,951 1997 449,385 311,398 59,098 54,321 24,568 70.0 1999 456,091 314,448 61,108 55,475 25,060 2000 460,542 315,988 62,674 56,377 25,331 65.0 2003 475,972 322,845 68,260 59,558 26,698 2004 482,873 325,775 70,122 61,018 27,153 60.0 2005 491,071 329,300 71,984 62,178 27,609 2006 500,021 332,718 75,185 63,610 28,508 55.0 2010 519,508 1 336,899 1 82,324 1 70,492 29,793 -U.S. Average Annual Increase 50.0 -Hawaii 1990- 1.81% 1.22% 2.99% 3.34% 4.38% 2000° 45.0 2000- X15 el^ 41 e°jti eC3 �Ce eCj\ eCj o°ti o°°' 1.12% 0.72% 2.97% 1.88% 1.80% 2003° 2003- Source: Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, Economic 2006° 1.68% 1.02% 3.38% 2.27% 2.30% Research Division. 2006- 2010° 0.97% 0.31% 2.37% 2.70% 0.83% The trend in homeownership has been upward, a_ Average annual increase forthe period noted. but we haven't moved ahead of other states. In Sources: 2009 DBEDT Data Book, 2010 Census. 1985, Hawaii ranked 49th out of the 51 markets (50 states and Washington, D.C.). Only the District of Columbia and New York State had Household Conditions lower ownership rates. In 2009, Hawaii still ranked 48th ahead of D.C., New York, and Conditions in Hawaii's households reflect our California.18 high-priced housing market. We investigated homeownership, shelter costs, crowding, and The federal government did not publish annual out-of-state ownership. home ownership rates for Hawaii counties until 2005. Figure 6 shows the comparison of county rates as they drifted downward from a high in Homeownership 200519. Growth in housing stock between 1990 and 2010 Hawaii and Kauai Counties have higher was matched by higher homeownership rates homeownership rates and the City and County of across the State (Figure 5)17. Homeownership Honolulu has the lowest rate among the four rates in Hawaii rose from just over 50 percent in counties. Maui's home ownership rate was 1985 to 57 percent in 2010. Homeownership similar to that of Kauai and Hawaii Counties rose during the market run-up in the early until the late 1980s, when it began moving nineties, fell during the late nineties, and rose toward Oahu's rate. 18 U.S Census 2010 17 Note that Federal homeownership figures (Figure 5) do 19 The ACS rates are slightly different from those of the not match Hawaii's demand survey data (Figure 6) Federal Reserve Bank. The FED shows the peak as exactly. The Federal data suggest a significant dip in 2007, which is a more likely scenario. ACS figures for homeownership in the late nineties counties are reliable. Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 10 ©SMS, Inc. November,2011 Figure 6: State and Counties of Hawaii, was also higher — almost seven percentage Homeownership Rates, 1990-2010 points higher. 70i _ state Honolulu Table 5: Shelter-to-Income Ratio by County, 2011 Hawaii Maui star Kauai payment as City& County County 65% % of HH State of Countyol of County of income Hawaii Honolulu Hawaii of Maui Kauai 60% Less than 30 51.4% 54.1% 49.1% 40.8% 46.0% � 30 to 40 10.4% 82% 12.5% 18.0% 17.3% Over 40 27.7% 1 28.0% 1 25.1% 130.2% 1 24.2% Source: Housing Demand Survey, 2011. Households with 55% I no shelter payment and those that did not provide sufficient information to calculate a shelter-to-income ratio are not included. See Table A-9 in the appendix. 50% 1990 1992 1997 1999 2000 2003 2006 2010 The market has affected the ratio over time. The percent of households paying more than 40 Sources: U.S. Decennial Census 1990 and 2000, HHPS percent of their income for shelter held steady Housing Demand Survey 1992, 1997, 2003, 2006, and around 18 percent between 1992 and 2003. The 2010, SrsS estimate 1999. depressed housing market of the nineties held prices and rents in check while the emerging Shelter Cost & Shelter-to-Income Ratios economy raised household incomes. Between 2003 and 2006, however, rapidly rising housing In 2011, about 51 percent of Hawaii residents costs pushed the shelter-to-income ratio to new were paying less than 30 percent of their highs. This year, the situation is even more monthly income for shelter (Table 5). That level difficult for Hawaii residents. is considered to be an appropriate shelter to income ratio for most homeowners. Loan The shelter-to-income picture was very similar applicants whose mortgage payments are no across counties. High housing costs, particularly more than 30 percent of their monthly income in the City and County of Honolulu and Maui will have sufficient cash to support their families County, have had a negative impact on those and make loan payments on time. residents. About 30 percent of households must dedicate more than 40 percent of their income About 14 percent of all households paid between each month to shelter payments. 30 and 40 percent of their income for shelter and close to 40 percent of households across the Crowding and Doubling Up State paid more than 40 percent of their monthly income for shelter. Having relatively high Statewide, 21 percent of our households were percentages of owners with high shelter-to- crowded by the census definition, and fully 30 income ratios is not unusual in high-priced percent were either doubled up or crowded. housing markets. The shelter-to-income ratios have changed In 1997, the recession was ending and the somewhat from 2006. The 2011 figures showed situation was better. By 2003 and the beginning that about three percent fewer households were of a new period of construction, crowding and below the 30 percent mark. However, the doubling up were still lower. Congestion in our percentage of families with shelter payments households reached its lowest point in 2006, just higher than 40 percent of their monthly income at the peak of the boom. This year crowding and doubling-up increased significantly. Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 11 ©SMS, Inc. November,2011 City & Table 6. Overcrowding, State and Counties of County County County County State Hawai'i, 1992, 1997, 2003, 2006 and 2011 of of of of of Total Crowding Indicators Honolulu Maui Hawai'i Kaua'i Hawai'i House- Doubled Single Year holds Crowdeda Up Both° Family 4.2 10.5 11.5 12.3 7.3 1992 247,349 23.2% 32.0% Homes 1997 272,234 10.6% 27.2% Condo Honolulu 2003 292,003 10.0% 10.0% 17.6% 15.4 62.9 49.2 73.5 27.1 2006 303,149 8.0% 9.7% 15.2% Units 2011 310,882 13.3% 13.8% 22.9% Total 1992 34,266 26.8% 25.9% Units 8.4 27.6 17.8 21.5 13.7 1997 39,252 10.4% 24.8% "Out-of-State Owners" is the percent of all units for which Maui 2003 43,687 11.0% 8.7% 17.3% the tax bill is mailed to an out-of-state address. Source: 2006 49,484 8.0% 9.6% 15.3% Hawaii Tax Map Key records, tabulated by Hawai'i 2011 54,132 11.4% 12.6% 19.4% Information Services for SMS. 1992 39,789 18.7% 26.0% 1997 46,271 7.9% 24.3% Overall, people from outside of the State own Hawaii 2003 54,644 7.0% 9.3% 14.4% more than seven percent of Hawai'i single-family 2006 61,213 7.0% 11.2% 15.9% 2011 67,096 8.6% 10.7% 17.2% housing units and over 27 percent of our 1992 16,981 17.4% 26.3% condominium units. In all counties except 1997 18,817 9.1% 25.4% Honolulu, out-of-state ownership for single-family Kauai 2003 20,460 6.0% 12.5% 16.1% units is about 10 percent. For Hawaii County, 2006 21,971 7.1% 11.9% 15.5% nearly 50 percent of condominium units are 2011 23,201 10.0% 11.0% 16.9% 1992 338,38,38 5 22.2% 300.33%% owned by persons who live outside of Hawai'i, 1997 376,574 10.2% 26.5% and the comparable figures for Maui and Kaua-i State 2003 410,794 9.6% 10.0% 17.1% are 63 and 74 percent, respectively. 2006 435,818 8.2% 10.0% 15.3% 2011 455,311 12.1% 13.2% 21.4% Source: Housing Demand Survey, 1992, 1997, 2003, 2006, Current Demand 2011. a Based on more than 1.01 persons per room. ° More than one family group in a single housing unit(See Glossary). Raw, Final, and Effective Demand C Percent of households crowded, doubled up, or both. Estimates Before 2003, HHPS measured crowding and "crowded or doubled up". After 2003, HHPS included separate Data collected In the Housing Demand Survey measures for crowding and doubled up. allows us to calculate three distinct measures of housing demand. Raw demand is the number of Out-of-State Ownership households planning to move at some point in the future, whether to buy or to rent. This In the first half of the last decade, West Coast measure should not be confused with needed real estate prices surpassed those in Hawaii housing units. Many, if not most, of the units and out-of-state demand increased dramatically. shown That helped move Hawai'i home prices to record from current inventory.at the right in Table 8 will be supplied highs and brought about monitoring of our out-of- Statewide, raw demand was at 51 percent, up state demand in planning studies. Table 7 from 40 percent in 2006. Raw demand is equal presents figures for all four counties in 2011. to just over 232,000 households statewide and includes all households except those who reported that they would never move. For the counties, the percentage of households planning Table 7. Percent of Owners Who are Not Hawai'i to move to a different unit at some point in the Residents, 2011 future ranged from 42 percent in Hawai'i County Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 12 ©SMS, Inc. November,2011 to 55 percent for the City and County of As usual, there were more residents from Honolulu. Honolulu planning to move out of State than from other counties. We were surprised to see From raw demand we subtracted households Hawai-i County's figure jump from 12 percent to that stated they plan to move but had no time 22 percent this year. Residents on Maui and frame for doing so. That produced an estimate Kaua-i continue to enjoy the Aloha State and of final demand that is comparable across time. plan to stay in Hawaii when they move to new Final demand includes those households that homes. plan to move and have a definite time frame for doing so. In 2011, final demand was 40 percent Across the state, effective demand is expected statewide. At 43 percent of all households, the to be equal to about 30 percent of all 2011 City and County of Honolulu had the highest final households. Demand was highest for Maui and demand. The Counties of Hawai-i and Kaua-i Honolulu (31%), and lowest in the County of had the lowest final demand at 33 percent. Hawai-i (26%). Price increases have been higher on Maui and, while more units have been The most narrowly defined measure of demand, added to the inventory than in other counties, the effective demand, includes only those level of out-of-state ownership has also been households that plan to move, have a definite much higher (see Table 7). This suggests that time frame for doing so, and plan to remain in pent-up demand may be higher for Maui than for the State of Hawaii when they move to their the other counties. next home. Nearly one-quarter of all those who want to move expressed a desire to move out of the State of Hawai-i, up from 18 percent in 2006. Table 8. Interest in Moving to a New Home by County, 2006 and 2011 Wantto Has formed Final Will not Estimated County move to a new plans to demand for move out-of- Effective number of Year home move homes state Demand movers City&County of 2006 39% 85% 33% 79% 31% 93,528 Honolulu 2011 54% 79% 43% 73% 31% 97,429 County of Maui 2006 45% 88% 401/o 88% 39% 19,577 2011 47% 78% 37% 86% 31% 16,937 County of Hawaii 2006 42% 86% 39% 88% 37% 22,796 2011 42% 79% 33% 78% 26% 17,412 County of Kauai 2006 36% 86% 31% 81% 29% 6,362 2011 42% 79% 33% 84% 27% 6,339 State of Hawaii 2006 40% 85% 34% 82% 33% 142,263 L_ 1 2011 51% 79% 401/o 76% 301/o 1 138,116 Source: Housing Demand Survey, 2006 and 2011 Note. "Will move out of state" is the number of households whose first choice was out-of-state. Final demand eliminates out-of-state movers from the raw demand estimate. Percentages shown in Table 8 are percent of all households. "Estimated number of movers" is the number of households planning to move to a new unit less the number of households whose next home will be outside Hawai'i. Improved sampling techniques in 2011 suggest that demand on Oahu was underestimated and homeownership was overestimated in 2006 due to the absence of cell-phone-only households in the sample. Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 13 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 The effective demand decreased across all Housing Preferences (Buyers and counties. A decrease in demand is consistent Renters) with Hawaii's slow growth economy and soft housing market. Buyer and renter preferences for certain housing unit characteristics were measured in 2011 as in Effective demand has changed notably since the past. The objective was to provide 1992, reflecting the changing condition of information on preferences to support a broad Hawaii's housing market. Across the State, range of housing issue analysis over the next effective demand fell continuously from 48 few years. In this section of the report, we will percent in 1992 to 44 percent in 1997, then 38 briefly describe the most salient of those percent in 2003, 34 percent in 2006 and to 30 preferences. percent in 2011. In the City and County of Honolulu, effective demand fell from the highest Among all households that want to move, 42 in the State (52%) in 1992 to 31 percent in 2011. percent plan to purchase their next unit. This Kauai County demand dropped markedly in the figure has changed little over the last 15 years. HHPS years, but not nearly as much as demand This year the preference for ownership was in Hawaii County. Effective demand in Hawaii unusually low, with notable decreases across all County, which was as high as 40 percent in counties. This shift away from homeownership 1992, is now the lowest among the Counties at is more likely a reaction to the current economic 26 percent. In Maui County, effective demand climate, difficulties obtaining financing, and dropped from 1992 through 2003, rebounded probable delays for homeowners who must sell between 2003 and 2006, and fell again to 31 their current units to purchase a new home, percent in 2011. rather than a genuine change in the preference for owning a home. There is little doubt that housing prices have affected demand estimates. Nearly 30 percent The preference for ownership units is not always of all those who expect to be moving out of translated into reality in the marketplace. About Hawaii mentioned housing prices as their main 14 percent of survey respondents statewide who reason for leaving. That is up from 12 percent in said they would choose to move to an owned 1997, 19 percent in 2003 and 26 percent in unit next time also said they were not sure they 2006. Two-thirds of those who said they would would be able to afford it and may continue not be buying a home on their next move said renting. That would be a more reliable estimate that housing costs were one of the major of the actual buyer rate in the market. If that is reasons for that decision. the case, we might expect that the growth in home ownership in Hawaii will stabilize or even Table 9. Effective Demand by County, 1992, 1997, drop a bit over the next few years. 2003, 2006 and 2011 City & County County County County State Buyer Preferences of of of of of Honolulu Maui Hawaii Kauai Hawaii Once again, the majority of potential buyers 1992 51.7% 38.8% 40.2% 38.5% 48.4% statewide (68%) preferred single-family detached 1997 47.3% 41.4% 34.3% 34.2% 44.4% 2003 38.9% 35.7% 33.8% 31.4% 37.5% homes. Single-family units are more important 2006 33.2% 39.6% 36.3% 30.6% 34.2% to buyers in Hawaii (87%), Maui (83%), and 2011 31.3% 31.3% 26.0% 27.3% 30.3% Kauai Counties (82%) than in Honolulu (61%). Source: Housing Demand Survey, 1992, 1997, 2003, 2006, The County of Hawaii, with the lowest and 2011 percentage of condominium units in the State, also showed the lowest preference for condo units (6%). Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 14 ©SMS, Inc. November,2011 About 40 percent of potential buyers said they Sixty-five percent of households that plan to rent would be looking for at least a two-bedroom unit their next unit indicated that they would like to and 29 percent said they would need at least purchase a home in the future. Their reasons for three bedrooms. The willingness to settle for not doing so now most often included the high fewer bedrooms was higher than in the past, cost of housing and insufficient funds for a down perhaps reflecting a willingness to compromise payment. These households reported their on unit size in the face of high prices. The same intention to buy a unit in an average of eight was true for the preferred number of bathrooms. years. Half of buyers conceded that they would be willing to accept a unit with only one or one-and- a-half bathrooms. QUALIFICATION FOR PURCHASE AND RENT When asked about the smallest size unit they HHPS 2011 includes a third measure of demand, would accept, nearly half of the would-be buyers qualified demand. Not everyone who plans to (46%) said they could live with 800 to 1,200 buy or rent a different unit (raw demand) within a square feet. An additional 16 percent said they given time period (final demand) in the State of could accept units between 1,200 and 1,500 Hawaii (effective demand) will be able to do so square feet. in the next few years. This third tier of demand evaluates those households that are financially able to make a move. Renter Preferences The Housing Demand Survey includes many Households that plan to rent their next home are items to measure the relative ability of potential predominantly current renters (87%). Among buyers or renters to purchase certain housing those who would rent their next unit statewide, products. Although no particular product is being 43 percent preferred to rent a single-family evaluated here, it is useful to review the house. About 47 percent preferred an apartment qualification factors to get an idea how they may or condo, and another five percent chose a affect purchasing capacity in the near future. townhouse. Preference for single-family homes was once again much higher on the Neighbor Islands than on Oahu, where renters were more Households That Plan to Buy interested in townhomes. To evaluate the financial readiness of those Across the State, renters first choice would be households wishing to purchase a housing unit larger units with two (43%) or three bedrooms in Hawaii, we examined their income, savings, (31%). Nearly all of the potential renters, and total amount available for a down payment. however, were willing to take units with fewer These elements were evaluated against a than three bedrooms, if necessary (83%). Again, median priced home assuming a fixed rate, 30- these figures suggest a willingness to accept year loan, a 5 percent interest rate, and a 20 smaller units than in the past. The number of percent down payment. The results are outlined bathrooms required was also relatively low, with in Tables 10a and 10b. 69 percent reporting that they could accept one or one-and-a-half baths. The story was essentially the same across all Counties...many households planning to About 41 percent of potential renters said they purchase their next home earn enough money to would need less than 1,000 square feet of space cover the monthly payments, but far fewer have in their next unit. An almost equal number of the ability to marshal sufficient funds for the renters reported a need for between 1,000 and down payment. Between 33 and 71 percent of 1,500 square feet (39%). prospective buyers could purchase a median price home and still dedicate less than 30 Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 15 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 percent of their income to housing expenses Unlike the 13 percent of single-family each month. Only 14 to 21 percent of these homebuyers who are fully qualified, 27 percent households, however, have enough money in of prospective condo buyers statewide are fully savings, from the sale of their current home, or qualified. It is interesting to note that Hawaii from other sources to provide a substantial down County, which had the lowest percentage of fully payment. When both of these financial qualified homebuyers (11%) has the largest qualification measures are applied, the percentage of fully qualified condo buyers percentage of households likely to end up with among Hawaii's counties (35%). the keys to a new home falls to between 11 and 18 percent. These results suggest that multi-family ownership units may be an attractive alternative At nearly 18 percent, Kauai has the largest for those households that wish to purchase their percentage of fully qualified buyers. Just over 13 next home but cannot meet the financial percent of potential homebuyers in Honolulu and obligations that accompany a single-family unit. Maui are well qualified. While only 11 percent of When households with a preference for a single prospective homebuyers on the Big Island would family home were asked if they would consider a be fully qualified to buy their next home, nearly condo unit if a single-family unit in their price three-quarters could afford to make the monthly range was not available, three-quarters of payments if they could pull together sufficient prospective home buyers indicated that they funds for the down payment. would consider that option. Nearly all of those households willing to accept a multi-family unit The same set of financial qualification measures were current renters trying to transition to home was applied to potential homebuyers who wish to ownership (95%). purchase a condo unit. Using the current median sales price for condos in each county, Although there is a substantial number of the financial readiness of these households was Hawaii residents fully qualified to purchase their determined. As shown in Table 10a, Hawaii next home, many are not planning to do so in the residents planning to purchase a multi-family near future. About half of the well-qualified rather than a single-family unit are somewhat buyers expect to move sometime in the next more likely to be financially able to do so. couple of years (52%), but more than one- quarter of well-qualified buyers (27%) reported Between 22 percent (Kauai County) and 89 no plans to move for at least 5 years. An percent (Hawaii County) of these households additional 12 percent indicated that it would likely could afford to make the monthly housing be more than 10 years before they began payment on a multi-family ownership unit. seriously to consider a move. Because the median price, and therefore the down payment required, is lower for condominiums, a significantly greater percentage of these households would have enough money for the down payment. Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 16 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 Table 10a. Financial Qualification to Purchase a Single Family Home, Counties and State of Hawal'i, 2011 Honolulu Maui Hawaii Kauai State Median Sales Price $570,000 $415,000 $224,500 $415,000 $513,300 Down Payment Required $114,000 $83,000 $44,900 $81,000 $102,660 Monthly Mortgage Payment $2,448 $1,782 $964 $1,771 $2,204 Total Effective Demand Buyers 24,355 6,281 7,605 1,658 39,899 Can Afford Monthly Payments 35.6% 40.9% 71.0% 49.4% 32.7% Have Adequate Down Payment 19.9% 15.8% 13.8% 20.9% 17.49/o Fully Qualified 13.5% 13.2% 11.00/0 17.8% 13.1% Source: Median sales price from Multiple Listing Service (MLS) Sept. 2011. Data about buyer qualifications from Housing Demand Survey, 2011. Base is households that plan to purchase their next SFD unit in the State of Hawai i. Table 10b. Financial Qualification to Purchase a Condominium, Counties and State of Hawaii, 2011 Honolulu Maui Hawaii Kauai State Median Sales Price $316,500 $310,000 $212,500 $235,000 $315,800 Down Payment Required $63,300 $62,000 $42,500 $47,000 $63,160 Monthly Mortgage Payment $1,359 $1,331 $913 $1,009 $1,356 Total Effective Demand Buyers 14,309 1,168 1,196 275 16,947 Can Afford Monthly Payments 58.7% 55.7% 89.00/0 22.2% 59.2% Have Adequate Down Payment 31.6% 25.4% 34.7% 26.2% 28.5% Fully Qualified 30.1% 24.6% 34.7% 11.6% 27.0% Source: Source: Median sales price from Multiple Listing Service (MLS) Sept. 2011. Data about buyer qualifications from Housing Demand Survey, 2011. Base is households that plan to purchase their next MFD unit in the State of Hawai i. Current Renters That Plan to Buy There are approximately 25,000 households in While homeowners planning to buy are already the State of Hawaii who currently rent their making substantial monthly housing payments, residence and plan to purchase their next home the same is not true among current renters who in the State of Hawaii. While buying a unit plan to purchase their next home. Many renters would be the first choice for these households, who want to buy will have to increase their upon further questioning, 21 percent conceded monthly shelter payment substantially when they that they might have to rent their next home move up to home ownership. Only 21 percent of instead. them are paying more than $1,700 a month for shelter now. Fully 85 percent of these Current renters often do not have adequate households earn less than 140 percent of the savings or other assets to make the necessary AMI for the County. down payment on a home. About forty percent of renters reported have at least $5,000 in Households that are presently renting their home savings to put toward a down payment and only but intend to buy their next unit are on a eight percent could gather enough resources to substantially different timetable than are current put $60,000 down on their next home. Sixteen homeowners. Nearly all of the current renters percent of renter households said they had no who intend to buy (94%) plan to purchase a money to put toward the down payment on a home within the next five years. Based on their home. financial qualifications, however, homeownership Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 17 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 may be a more distant reality for many who are or higher than the average rent amount. For 22 currently in a rental unit. percent of prospective multi-family unit renters, it would require less than 30 percent of their household income each month. Households That Plan to Rent Among renters who desire a multi-family unit, Nearly three-quarters of the households planning those in Hawaii County are the most financially to rent their next home cited financial reasons for prepared to do so. The majority of future renters their decision. Their reasons most often include in the City & County of Honolulu, however, do an inability to afford the monthly payment, not earn enough to comfortably make the insufficient down payment, or that purchasing a average rent payment each month. home in Hawaii is just "too expensive'. These households were also asked if they would opt to The remaining 43 percent of households purchase a home now instead of renting if there (27,383) planning to rent their next residence in was a unit available they could afford. Close to Hawaii would prefer a single-family dwelling. As 70 percent responded affirmatively. with all of the groups, those planning to rent a house claimed they could afford higher monthly The financial qualification of Hawaii households rent payments than was suggested by either planning to rent their next home was evaluated their current rent payments or their annual using the current average monthly rent rate for income. While 22 percent reported that a higher single-family homes and multi-family units in the than average monthly payment would be within State of Hawaii and each County. Three their budget, only 18 percent were currently measures, current household income, current making shelter payments at or above that level. monthly shelter payment, and affordable monthly rent amount, were examined to determine the Further, annual household income figures financial fitness of Hawaii's prospective renters. suggested that relatively few of these households (7%) are capable of making the Among the approximately 35,000 households average rent payment for a single family home. across the State that intend to rent an apartment This was especially true for the City and County or other multi-family unit when they move, one- of Honolulu, where less than one percent of quarter indicated that making the average prospective renters looking for a single-family monthly rent payment would not be a problem. dwelling earned enough to make the rent Indeed, one-quarter of these households are payments. currently making monthly rent payments equal to Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 18 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 Table 10c. Financial Qualification to Rent a Multi-Family Unit, Counties and State of Hawaii, 2011 Honolulu Maui Hawaii Kauai State Median Monthly Rent Amount $1,582 $1,122 $861 $1,147 $1,431 Security Deposit+ 1st Mo. Rent $3,164 $2,244 $1,722 $2,294 $2,862 Total Effective Demand Renters 29,457 2,515 1,696 1,005 34,673 Can Afford Monthly Payments Self-Reported Affordable Rent 27.9% 36.79/o 60.7% 44.3% 25.0% Same or Higher Currently Monthly Rent 20.5% 25.2% 43.6% 30.9% 24.9% Same or Higher Income Based Qualification 14.9% 37.4% 1 61.89/o 33.0% 22.2% Source: Housing Demand Survey, 2011. Base is households that plan to rent their next MFD unit in the State of Hawai i. Table 10d. Financial Qualification to Rent a Single Family Unit, Counties and State of Hawai i, 2011 Honolulu Maui Hawaii Kauai State Average Monthly Rent Amount $2,508 $1,742 $1,218 $1,657 $1,935 Security Deposit+ 1st Mo. Rent $5,016 $3,484 $2,436 $3,314 $3,870 Total Effective Demand Renters 15,598 4,309 5,064 2,412 27,383 Can Afford Monthly Payments t Self-Reported Affordable Rent 1.5% 16.0% 28.0% 55.7% 21.8% Same or Higher Currently Monthly Rent 4.9% 4.8% 25.9% 49.9% 17.6% Same or Higher Income Based Qualification 0.8% 1 20.5% 1 23.8% 1 11.9% 1 7.4% Source: Housing Demand Survey, 2011. Base is households that plan to rent their next SFD unit in the State of Hawai i. Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 19 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 HOUSING PRICES The unique aspect of Hawaii's housing market history is the length of time that prices remain The most distinguishing characteristics of fairly steady after a run-up. Prices drop, but by Hawaii's housing market are its high prices and lesser amounts and at a slower pace than in cyclical nature. Figure 7 shows representative other high-priced markets. data 20 for Honolulu housing prices in current dollars and Figure 8 compares Hawaii housing At the beginning of a run-up in a high-priced prices with those of other states. housing market prices are relatively low, household incomes have caught up with or even Our last two price run-ups are clearly indicated. passed home prices, and affordability is high. In both cycles, housing prices more than People start buying houses and prices rise. The doubled in a few years. Both periods of inability of incomes to keep up with housing expansion ended quickly, after which prices prices eventually stalls even the most persistent dropped slightly, held in place, and then dropped run-up. Sales drop off quickly and the process again. The period of adjustment following the begins anew. The length of time the average last run-up was nearly a decade long. price holds after a run-up defines the recovery The intensity of the run-up periods is not unique period. to Hawaii. West Coast States, New England, In other high-priced markets, prices fall, incomes New York, Washington D.C., and Miami have rise, and affordability is recovered. In Hawaii, similar profiles. New York, Boston, and Los prices remain relatively high and it takes longer Angeles have had higher home prices than for incomes to catch up and restore affordability Hawaii in some recent years. San Francisco's to the market. Nationwide, high-priced real price history is a bit more volatile than Hawai i's. estate markets lost more than 50 percent of their boom-years gain by the end of 2009 (Glaeser, Figure 7. Housing Prices in Honolulu, 1980 2009). In Hawaii, prices have been steadier to 2011 than that. 700000 Figure 8. Housing Prices in Six High-Price —SF Price Markets, 1985 to 2010 600000 _Condo Price $100 500000 $90 San Diego Boston 400000 $80 Los Angeles �SanFrancisco 300000 0 $70 — — •New York 0 Honolulu 200000 0 $60 N N 100000 a $50 u ff- 0 ° $40 m a ti N m a ti N m a ti N m a � C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 $30 o rL L� r�, m a 6 ob o m rn r�, m m m m m 0 0 0 0 0 m m m m m m m m m 0 0 0 0 0 $20 N N N N N Source: University of Hawai'i Economic Research $10 Organization(UHERO) rn 0 W 0 N m rn m 0 N a 0 i m W W W m m m m m m 0 0 0 0 0 0 M m m m m m m m m 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 Some data are available for other counties and for other Source: National Association of Realtors,2011 and types are not fully comparable. No reliable data are available for the State as a whole for such a long series. Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 20 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 Rents Figure 9. Average Rents, Counties and State of Hawaii, 2003-2011 The Rental Housing Study 2011 shows that $2,100 Hawai'i asking rents were on the rise from 2003 through 2006, then fell notably from 2007 $1,900 to 2010, but have begun to show signs of a slight reversal in the last half of 2010 and first $1,700 half of 2011. Data for the first half of 2011 $1,500 indicate that asking rents are on the rise for the State and each County except Hawaii County. $1.300 $1,100 Contract rents throughout the State rose between 2003 and 2009, with a slight decrease $goo in the rate of growth for 2009. In keeping with _ — Hawaii y — • Honolulu the findings for asking rents, data for 2011 $700 HOUSING FORECASTS, 2012-2030 The focus of the HHPS is on planning — using population growth rate of 1.0 percent per annum, housing market information to develop wise household size dropping by .01 points per courses of action in housing development in the decade, household income growth rate of about next few years. Planning's future-oriented 2.6 percent per annum, and interest rates component requires more than information on beginning at 4.0 percent in 2011 and rising to past performance. We will need a forecast of 6.25 percent by 2030. how the housing market will function in the future. Modeled Demand The Hawaii Housing Model was developed to provide forecasts. Initiated in 1992, the Model Figure 11 presents demand estimates for the was expanded each time the Study was State housing market from 1980 through 2030. updated. It exists today as a supply and demand Data are shown for single-family and multi-family model of Hawaii's housing market. It treats unit sales. In years before 2011, the sales each County as an independent housing market figures were based on resales reported by that can be summed to describe housing activity boards of realtors. In the last two studies, for the entire State. For those who are estimates for new unit sales and sales prices interested, the most recent version of the Hawaii have become available. Post-2010 new unit Housing Model is further described in the counts reflect the assumptions noted above and Technical Report22. the history of the housing market since 1980. Figure 11. Housing Unit Sales, State of HOUSING DEMAND Hawaii, 1980-2030 25,000 The Hawaii Housing Model summarizes ■SF resales ■MF resales demand in terms of units sold each year 23 and produces separate estimates for single-family 20,000 and multi-family units. For past years, demand u is based heavily on the unit sales reported by C 15,000 -------------- ------ county boards of realtors and subsequently D m reported by DBEDT. Sales forecasts for future s years are based on past performance of the o 10,000 ---- ------ --- housing market and several other factors =_ including population growth, household 0 5,000 formation, household income, and expected (- interest rates. z _ O N O N O N O N O N O Important parameters set for the statewide m m m m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 forecasts shown here are as follows: a Source: Hawaii Housing Model, 2011 HHPS, 2011 Technical Report. 23 Note: The discussion of demand in the previous section As noted earlier, the Hawaii housing market has was based on the Demand Survey where "demand" is been cyclical over the last 35 years. Very identified by housing consumers. Data from past generally, we have had three major market Demand Surveys have been incorporated in the expansions followed by periods of post- Housing Model. What appears here is the end result of supply and demand characteristics of the local housing expansion adjustment. The cyclical nature of market in terms of the total number of units sold each sales is definitely a feature of our housing market year. Hawari Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 22 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 and there is no indication that the underlying ACS data as well as authorized county building factors responsible for those cycles will change permits. Post-2010 new unit counts reflect the significantly in the future. The model, therefore, previously noted assumptions and the history of forecasts continuation of that pattern. It the housing market since 1980. produces another housing run-up beginning later in this decade. We note that the quality and Figure 12. New Construction, State of quantity of housing-related data has improved Hawaii, 1985-2030 notably since 1992. The model and its forecasts 12,000 benefit from the improvement and reflect ■MF new build (total) ■SF new build(total) improvement in detail through the years. 10,000 The forecast suggests continued slow growth in n 8,000 1 1111 1 11 Hawai'i's housing market in the short term. It r predicts slow sales between 2011 and 2017. We do not expect any further decreases in sales. s,000 1! E Obviously, changes in model assumptions would x 4,000 alter results. Increasing employment, for instance, would push up household incomes, 2,000 shortening the current adjustment period and increasing the volume of the next run-up. - N1,65 Increasing interest rates would have the opposite 9801985199019952000200520102015202020252030 effect. The results shown in Figure 11 represent Source: Hawaii Housing Model, 2011 our current best estimate of housing demand over the next twenty years24. The market cycles are apparent in the supply forecast just as they are in the demand estimates. The forecast follows a similar pattern HOUSING SUPPLY of rapid growth and longer adjustment periods during which housing prices fall slightly and The Hawaii Housing Model measures supply in production is reduced significantly. terms of housing units added each year with separate estimates for single-family and multi- The forecast suggests continued slow growth in family units. For past years, added units are the Hawai'i's housing market. Specifically, it difference between housing unit counts for two predicts slow sales between 2011 and 2017. We adjacent years. Forecasts of added units are do not expect any further decreases in sales. based on past performance of the housing market, population growth, household formation, Again, changing assumptions would alter the household income, and expected interest rates. forecast. Increasing population growth, The assumptions applied for the supply forecast decreasing unemployment, and low interest are the same as those noted above for the rates all work toward increasing demand and demand forecast. therefore the need for more housing units. Slower growth in any of those assumptions Modeled Supply would decrease the need for new units. Table 11 shows our current best estimate of housing Estimated production of new housing units for supply changes for the next twenty years. Hawaii between 1980 and 2030 is shown in Figure 12. For years before 2011, the housing unit counts are based on decennial census and 24 With the standard caveat that reliability of forecast estimates decreases in later years. Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 23 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 NEEDED UNITS Table 12 shows the same supply forecast distributed according to the survey income in The ultimate objective of the modeling exercise each county as measured in the Housing was to estimate the number of new housing units Demand Survey. The 2011 Survey median needed in Hawaii in the near future. As in the income for the State was $58,700. past, we accomplished this in two steps: (1) estimate the total number of units required in the As identified by the Housing Demand Survey, Hawaii Housing Model; (2) estimate the types of the median household income for the State was units needed (by market level and units per $58,700. The median was slightly higher for the structure) based on the Housing Demand City and County of Honolulu ($59,076) and Survey. In 2011, we added a further step approximately equal for the County of Maui intended to estimate the numbers of elderly and ($58,424). Both Kauai and Hawaii Counties had family housing units needed in each county. median household incomes well below the statewide median ($49,730 and $49,696, respectively). Total New Units Needed Based on the model, the total number of housing units that will change hands in the period between 2012 and 2016 is approximately 60,000 to 75,000 units. This is the number of units that would be required to meet the needs of everyone who wanted to move. Most of those would be resales and not require any construction. The number of new units that would have to be built during that five-year period to meet new demand generated by changing demographic and economic conditions might be as high as 50,000. Some of those units will be produced by Hawaii's housing industry (public and private). Some will not. Units that are not built represent the shortage of units needed to fill total demand for housing units. The shortage results from market inefficiencies (lack of information or coordination, lag times, etc.), regulations that dampen supply, and economic realities (difficulties of producing units below market prices, etc.). This shortage has come to be known as "needed units" and is defined as the difference between total demand and expected supply. The supply forecast shown in Table 11 represents the needed units by HUD income guidelines. HUD guidelines define the income qualifications for service under most HUD programs. Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 24 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 Table 11. Needed Housing Units by HUD Income Classification, Counties and State of Hawaii, 2012- 2016 Total Units Needed, 2012 through 2016 HUD Income Classification LT 30 30 to 50 50 to 80 80 to 120 120 to 140 140 to 180 180+ State of Hawai'i 8,136 4,891 6,221 2,857 1,944 1,320 2,768 28,137 Ownership Units 2,248 1,149 2,833 1,364 1,297 886 1,961 11,738 Single-Family 1,225 674 2,207 1,014 994 828 1,383 8,325 Multi-Family 1,023 475 626 350 303 58 578 3,413 Rental Units 5,888 3,742 3,388 1,493 647 434 807 16,399 Single-Family 559 337 422 83 40 135 282 1,858 Multi-Family 5,329 3,405 2,966 1,410 607 299 525 14,541 City and County of Honolulu 6,006 3,549 4,268 1,976 1,561 632 1,865 19,857 Ownership Units 1,850 669 2,038 929 1,046 364 1,344 8,240 Single-Family 887 277 1,499 643 752 364 779 5,201 Multi-Family 963 392 539 286 294 0 565 3,039 Rental Units 4,156 2,880 2,230 1,047 515 268 521 11,617 Single-Family 134 69 183 0 0 92 195 673 Multi-Family 4,022 2,811 2,047 1,047 515 176 326 10,944 County of Maui 803 690 924 374 101 302 260 3,454 Ownership Units 130 249 380 131 10 261 199 1,360 Single-Family 88 212 331 117 10 203 190 1,151 Multi-Family 42 37 49 14 0 58 9 209 Rental Units 673 441 544 243 91 41 61 2,094 Single-Family 83 90 104 49 15 0 31 372 Multi-Family 590 351 440 194 76 41 30 1,722 County of Hawai'i 1,013 493 577 339 237 316 539 3,514 Ownership Units 243 184 286 224 201 236 387 1,761 Single-Family 225 172 277 179 192 236 387 1,668 Multi-Family 18 12 9 45 9 0 0 93 Rental Units 770 309 291 115 36 80 152 1,753 Single-Family 231 145 32 12 24 29 52 525 Multi-Family 539 164 259 103 12 51 100 1,228 County of Kaua'i 315 159 451 167 45 71 104 1,312 Ownership Units 26 46 128 79 40 26 31 376 Single-Family 26 13 99 74 40 26 26 304 Multi-Family 0 33 29 5 0 0 5 72 Rental Units 289 113 323 88 5 45 73 936 Single-Family 111 34 102 22 0 15 4 288 Multi-Family 178 79 221 66 5 30 69 648 Sources: Housing Demand Survey, 2011 and Hawaii Housing Model, 2011. Note. The sum of the needed units for the four counties may not equal the total number of needed units for the State due to rounding. Needed units are those housing units needed to eliminate pent-up demand and accommodate new household formation between 2012 and 2016 for the State of Hawaii and its four counties, by preferred tenancy and unit type. Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 25 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 Table 12. Needed Housing Units by Housing Demand Survey Income Classification, Counties and State of Hawai i, 2012.2016 Total Units Needed, 2012 through 2016 Income Classification LT$30k $30k to$45k $45k to$60k $60k to$75k $75k to $100k to $120k $100k $125k State of Hawaii 10,050 4,584 3,988 2,392 2,390 2,440 2,293 28,137 Ownership Units 2,837 1,013 1,770 1,129 1,889 1,328 1,772 11,738 Single-Family 1,584 763 1,240 898 1,445 1,113 1,282 8,325 Multi-Family 1,253 250 530 231 444 215 490 3,413 Rental Units 7,213 3,571 2,217 1,263 501 1,113 521 16,399 Single-Family 751 213 154 269 73 319 79 1,858 Multi-Family 6,462 3,358 2,063 994 428 794 442 14,541 City and County of Honolulu 7,142 3,192 2,571 1,792 1,547 1,899 1,714 19,857 Ownership Units 2,175 481 1,150 762 1,364 921 1,387 8,240 Single-Family 1,017 284 739 551 984 716 910 5,201 Multi-Family 1,158 197 411 211 380 205 477 3,039 Rental Units 4,967 2,711 1,421 1,030 183 978 327 11,617 Single-Family 134 41 28 183 0 287 0 673 Multi-Family 4,833 2,670 1,393 847 183 691 327 10,944 County of Maui 1,000 673 799 231 382 138 231 3,454 Ownership Units 194 225 315 133 208 108 177 1,360 Single-Family 148 201 259 124 143 108 168 1,151 Multi-Family 46 24 56 9 65 0 9 209 Rental Units 806 448 484 98 174 30 54 2,094 Single-Family 126 94 57 16 48 7 24 372 Multi-Family 680 354 427 82 126 23 30 1,722 County of Hawai'i 1,492 402 385 259 379 295 302 3,514 Ownership Units 420 219 215 190 256 284 177 1,761 Single-Family 390 219 172 179 256 275 177 1,668 Multi-Family 30 0 43 11 0 9 0 93 Rental Units 1,072 183 170 69 123 11 125 1,753 Single-Family 358 17 17 46 25 11 51 525 Multi-Family 714 166 153 23 98 0 74 1,228 County of Kaua'i 415 317 233 110 81 108 48 1,312 Ownership Units 47 88 91 44 61 14 31 376 Single-Family 29 59 71 44 61 14 26 304 Multi-Family 18 29 20 0 0 0 5 72 Rental Units 368 229 142 66 20 94 17 936 Single-Family 132 60 53 24 0 15 4 288 Multi-Family 236 169 89 42 20 79 13 648 Sources: Housing Demand Survey, 2011 and Hawaii Housing Model, 2011. Note. The sum of the needed units for the four counties may not equal the total number of needed units for the State due to rounding. Needed units are those housing units needed to eliminate pent-up demand and accommodate new household formation between 2012 and 2016 for the State of Hawaii and its four counties, by preferred tenancy and unit type. Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 26 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 Types of Units Needed relatively high — as many as 3,500 to 6,000 units per year in recent decades. Table 11 shows the distribution of needed units by county, tenure and unit type for the next five Needed units are concentrated in market levels years. They have been estimated for each of below 180 percent of AMI. This finding suggests seven market levels following U.S. Department that the market is more effective in producing of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) high-end units than low-end units. Inefficiencies income guidelines. Table 12 shows a similar are exacerbated in periods of rapid market distribution of needed units, in this case expansion when fewer low-end units are built. distributed according to the 2011 median More middle-market and low-end units are built household income of each county and the State during periods of market adjustment. of Hawaii as measured in the HHPS Demand Survey. Needed units are also concentrated in the rental market rather than the ownership market. Again, The Hawaii Housing Model 2011 was used to the current housing market produces units for develop the total number of needed units by sale more efficiently than units for rent. county and for the State as a whole. The distribution of needed units by tenure, type, and The detail produced in this analysis will be useful market level was developed from Housing in a variety of housing planning efforts in the next Demand Survey data. five years. It is relevant, reliable, and utilitarian. The analysis employs the assumption that One conclusion of the 2011 modeling exercise needed units are distributed according to the supports major conclusions of every housing effective and qualified demand estimates from study and blue-ribbon housing task force the survey. conducted in Hawaii for the last twenty years — what we need is more affordable rental housing. Effective demand means that only Hawaii residents who are planning to move to a unit in Finally, we need to explain how each of four the State of Hawaii in the next five years were housing types -- market level units, affordable included in the analysis. The analysis did units, special needs housing, and units for those include people who are currently doubled-up for impacted by homelessness — are treated in the economic reasons. Hawaii Housing Model. The estimates are based on qualified demand in Market Level Units: Units needed for the sense that their housing choices have been households with incomes above 80 percent25 of adjusted to reflect their current economic AMI are referred to in the housing model as situations. If a survey respondent expressed a "market level" housing units. It is assumed that desire to move from a rented unit to an owned most of those will be produced by the private unit, but did not have the financial resources to sector. The model does not assume that market support that move, we added that case to the list level housing units will be produced on schedule of rental units needed rather than the ownership as they are needed. Hawaii's housing market is unit needed. marked by high prices and restricted supply. By The process of estimating needed units is crucial 25 This is strictly a characteristic of the Model and not an to housing planning because it identifies housing assertion that 80 percent, or any other level, is the"true" units other than those that will be produced by definition of market level housing. Many other levels are the local market under normal conditions. Not used even within Hawai i. Maui County classifies surprisingly, in a very high-priced housing market anything under 160 percent of AMI as public sector projects. Affordable housing developers tell us 60 like Hawai`i's the number of needed units is percent is an appropriate level because the private sector uses Low I ncome Housing Tax Credits below that level. Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 27 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 any method of reckoning, there will be a need for Homeless Housing Needs: Housing units that units at nearly every market level for a long time might result from homeless persons re-entering to come. the housing market are not included in Tables 11 or 12. By definition, homeless persons are not Affordable Units: Rental housing units included in the Hawaii Housing Model. The intended for households with incomes below 80 model is built on data on households or housing percent of AMI have, for the most part, been units. For the first time in 2011, the Housing assisted by the public sector. Failure to produce Demand Survey did make provision for including sufficient units for low- and moderate-income homeless persons. By incorporating cell phone households will cause pent-up demand in these interviews rather than relying solely on Iandline market segments. phone numbers associated with a housing unit, the 2011 Housing Demand Survey was able to Affordable housing includes two types of public solicit information from a very small number of sector-generated housing units. The first is homeless persons. Any units needed to house public housing, which includes units developed homeless people in Hawaii properly must be and maintained in perpetuity by the public sector. added to the table of needed units. We will It is "affordable" in the sense that it is available to return to this topic later in this report. qualified persons at below market prices. The second is government-assisted housing, which is usually produced in partnership with Units Needed for Elderly Housing private sector or non-profit affordable housing developers26. Table 13 presents the estimated number of units needed to house Hawaii's senior citizens. The Government assistance extends beyond funding. base number for the table is the same as in the Public sector programs and partnerships often previous two tables. We will need an additional involve government contributions in the form of 28,137 units to fill the gap between housing units financing, permitting, planning and zoning wanted and housing units produced over the variances, land and many other forms of next five years. Among those needed units, assistance. In some cases, affordable housing 3,205 are needed for elderly households — requires post-production services including households containing one or more persons 60 property management and services required by years of age or older with no children under the residents with special needs. Public sector age of 18 and no persons other than immediate agencies often help pay for or subsidize those family. The remaining housing units, referenced services. here as "family units," would be for the use of all other types of households. Special Needs Housing Units: Housing units that might be used by persons with special The units needed to serve elderly households needs are included Tables 11 and 12. They are accounts for about 11.4 percent of the total not specifically identified there, however. The needed units. The rates are similar for all housing needs of those subpopulations and their counties except Kauai County, where they impact on housing planning are discussed later account for 19 percent of the need. in this report. Considering just the units needed for elderly households, about two-thirds (2,092 units) are needed for low- and moderate-income households (under 80% AMI). Here the pattern 26 There may be affordable units produced solely by government agencies and there are some affordable is different across counties. The City and units produced by private sector agencies acting on County of Honolulu and Maui County are similar their own. The typical affordable project is usually a in the percentage of needed elderly units for low- collaborative effort involving multiple agencies and and moderate-income households (64% and sources of funding. Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 28 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 60%, respectively). Sixty-nine percent of the units needed to house the elderly in Hawaii County would serve households earning 80 percent AMI or less. The number of housing units needed to accommodate low- and moderate-income elderly households in Kauai County, however, accounts for 82 percent of the total elderly units needed. Within the units needed for households earning up to 80 percent of the HUD median, about one- quarter (26%) would be ownership units if their preferences could be filled. As suggested in our earlier discussions of qualification to own, very few of these households would be able to afford to buy a unit. The planning reality is that all 2,092 of the units for elderly households earning up to 80 percent of HUD median income should be rental units. Rental units will fill the need for housing at a level that the residents can afford. Table 13 also shows the preferences pattern for single-family and multi-family needed units. In general, the preference for single-family units is still visible in the estimates, but there is much greater acceptance of multi-family units among the elderly households. That is especially true among those with household incomes below 80 percent of AMI. As with the estimates in Tables 11 and 12, these estimates should be treated very loosely. Demand for any class of units might easily fulfill the housing needs of our elderly households. The pattern shown here is generated primarily by the preferences measured in the demand survey. The figures can be used by planners as ceiling estimates for needed units. Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 29 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 Table 13. Needed Elderly Housing Units, Counties and State of Hawaii, 2012-2016 Total Elderly Units Needed, 2012 Total Family Units Needed, 2012 through 2016 through 2016 HUD Income Classification HUD Income Classification Under 80% Over 80% Total Under 80% Over 80% Total State of Hawaii 2,092 1,113 3,205 17,156 7,776 24,932 28,137 Ownership Units 547 1,005 1,552 5,683 4,503 10,186 11,738 Single-Family 254 418 672 3,852 3,801 7,653 8,325 Multi-Family 293 587 880 1,831 702 2,533 3,413 Rental Units 1,545 108 1,653 11,473 3,273 14,746 16,399 Single-Family 119 15 134 1,199 525 1,724 1,858 Multi-Family 1,426 93 1,519 10,274 2,748 13,022 14,541 City and County of Honolulu 1,368 779 2,147 12,455 5,255 17,710 19,857 Ownership Units 345 779 1,124 4,212 2,904 7,116 8,240 Single-Family 96 237 333 2,567 2,301 4,868 5,201 Multi-Family 249 542 791 1,645 603 2,248 3,039 Rental Units 1,023 0 1,023 8,243 2,351 10,594 11,617 Single-Family 0 0 0 386 287 673 673 Multi-Family 1,023 0 1,023 7,857 2,064 9,921 10,944 County of Maui 248 164 412 2,169 873 3,042 3,454 Ownership Units 60 107 167 699 494 1,193 1,360 Single-Family 50 62 112 581 458 1,039 1,151 Multi-Family 10 45 55 118 36 154 209 Rental Units 188 57 245 1,470 379 1,849 2,094 Single-Family 54 0 54 223 95 318 372 Multi-FarnilV 134 57 191 1,247 284 1,531 1,722 County of Hawai'i 272 125 397 1,811 1,306 3,117 3,514 Ownership Units 89 109 198 624 939 1,563 1,761 Single-Family 77 109 186 597 885 1,482 1,668 Multi-Family 12 0 12 27 54 81 93 Rental Units 183 16 199 1,187 367 1,554 1,753 Single-Family 17 0 17 391 117 508 525 Multi-FamilV 166 16 182 796 250 1,046 1,228 County of Kaua'i 205 45 250 720 342 1,062 1,312 Ownership Units 53 10 63 147 166 313 376 Single-Family 30 10 40 108 156 264 304 Multi-Family 23 0 23 39 10 49 72 Rental Units 152 35 187 573 176 749 936 Single-Family 48 15 63 199 26 225 288 Multi-Family 104 20 124 374 150 524 648 Sources: Housing Demand Survey, 2011 and Hawaii Housing Model, 2011. Note. The sum of the needed units for the four counties may not equal the total number of needed units for the State due to rounding. Needed units are those housing units needed to eliminate pent-up demand and accommodate new household formation between 2012 and 2016 for the State of Hawaii and its four counties, by preferred tenancy and unit type. Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 30 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 HOUSING ISSUES In 2011, several issues were of interest to HHPS research has shown 27, for instance, that one of users in both the government and private the chief problems with the lease concept in sectors. These issues included the production of Hawaii is the inability to pass leased property on affordable housing units, generating units for to one's heirs. Sustainable leases can be written which affordability is sustainable, housing needs to allow such transfers. of special needs groups, homelessness, and the relationship between housing and transportation Any sustainable property agreement also entails needs as they may affect housing development other limitations on ownership and resale. The over the next decade. property must be owner occupied, must be sold back to the community, and there is usually a ceiling on the resale price. Other aspects of the SUSTAINABLE AFFORDABILITY lease agreement usually offset these features. The sustainable lease has been of interest to The 2011 Housing Demand Survey includes a Hawaii housing planners as a feasible method set of items to support the investigation of of producing affordable housing units that remain sustainable lease as an affordable housing affordable over time. The sustainable lease development tool. The objective was to test the concept is broadly defined in the industry and acceptability of the sustainable lease concept may take different forms. At base, a sustainable among potential homebuyers. lease is a leasehold arrangement that sustains a property in an affordable price range. Details of Statewide, 41 percent of prospective buyers the arrangement are generally developed to were willing to consider a sustainable lease if no favor lessees who need affordable housing to a fee simple homes were affordable. When survey greater extent than might be available in respondents were asked about the appeal of a conventional lease agreements. renewable lease with terms between 60 and 99 years, a greater percentage were willing to Sustainable leases are of interest in Hawaii for considering buying a leasehold property (52%). several reasons. First, it is an arrangement that The ability to pass the property on to one's heirs, allows government to maintain housing who would then receive a 60 to 99 year lease, developments as affordable over long periods of would prompt 62 percent of buyers to consider a time. The alternative might be to develop lease. properties for sale at affordable prices, but once they are sold the next buyer pays a market price. Overall, survey results for the sustainable lease Second, sustainable leases on government land questions changed very little between 2006 and can be written to reduce development costs and 2011. In 2011, people who planned to purchase greatly enhance the availability of the property to their next home were somewhat less willing than buyers below the level of current market 2006 respondents to consider a sustainable housing. Ground leases can be reduced or even lease. They were also less likely to be swayed eliminated, down payments can be reduced or once they understand the nature and terms of even fully absorbed in the sale, and lease prices the sustainable lease options. can be maintained over the course of the lease period. Third, sustainable lease agreements can be written to include features that increase the acceptability of leases in general, and controlled property agreements of a specific nature. Past 27 Housing Policy Study, 2006. Hawari Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 31 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 Table 14. Sustainable Lease Considerations by Once they understand how a sustainable lease County, 2006 and 2011 works, many people will be willing to take State of i County advantage of a sustainable lease to get into their Hawaii Honolulu I Hawaii Maui Kauai own homes. Would consider a lease if... ...there was nominal monthly paymentfor the lease. 2011 41.4% 37.4% 56.9% 41.9% 57.1% LOT SIZES ...the lease term was 60 to 99 yearsand renewable 2006 54.4% 50.8% 67.9% 58.0% 57.0% In the 2011 Housing Demand Survey, only 2011 52.3% 49.4% 62.7% 54.6% 59.7% residents of Kauai County who are planning to ... could passthe home to heirs with new 60 to 99 year lease 2006 64.1% 58.5% 81.5% 71.0% 77.4% move in the future, and residents of other islands 2011 62.3% 57.1% 78.1% 69.3% 77.2% who plan to move to Kauai, were asked If all above were true,would buy your next home sustainable additional questions concerning the relative leasehold or fee simple? importance of lot size and the unit type (single- Prefer sustainable lease family or multi-family). The question posed was: 2006 48.9% 43.8% 64.5% 64.4% 64.7% "One way to bring down the cost of a single- 2011 46.9% 41.8% 64.2% 48.8% 68.2% family house is to use smaller lot sizes. If you Would consider sustainable lease had a choice between a house on a smaller lot 2006 10.3% 11.0% 4.7% 4.9% 11.8% or a multifamily unit like a townhouse, which 2011 10.3% 11.2% 4.8% 11.8% 10.2% would you prefer?" Respondents who indicated Still want fee simple that they would accept a smaller lot in order to 2006 44.8% 47.0% 30.1% 30.4% 23.6% have a single-family dwelling (SFD) were then 2011 42.8% 47.0% 31.1% 39.4% 21.6% Base 2006: Asked of potential buyers who were not asked to specify the smallest lot size they would interested in leasehold property, even if fee simple property consider. was unavailable in their price range. Base 2011: Asked of all potential buyer households planning to purchase a unit in Among the 6,751 households questioned, about the State of Hawaii. 32 percent (2,191 households) plan to purchase Further analysis showed that those households their next home. Among these prospective most likely to find sustainable leases appealing buyers, 92 percent currently live on Kauai and were the ones who most need them. the remaining eight percent reside in one of the Sustainable leases appealed to more renters other three counties. than current owners, to those who were not sure they could come up with a down payment. They When Kauai County's 2,191 prospective buyer appealed to households that were crowded and households were asked about their preference had strong support among households earning for a single-family dwelling on a small lot or a less than 120 percent of the County AMI. multi-family dwelling, 85 percent opted for the Finally, sustainable leases were attractive to small lot SFD (1,869 households). Close to disproportionately high numbers of households eleven percent expressed a preference for a that were doubled up, crowded or included MFD (233 households) and the remaining four "hidden homeless" persons. percent (89 households) were unsure. The results suggest that there is a role for the Nine percent of prospective buyers who reported sustainable lease concept in developing a preference for a small-lot SFD originally stated affordable housing for Hawai i. Leasehold their intention to live in a MFD when they moved. arrangements can be used to produce more When presented with the small-lot SFD scenario, affordable housing units and maintain them in however, 168 households changed their the affordable housing stock indefinitely. These preference to SFD. This suggests that the idea data show that, even where leasehold property is of living in a SFD is highly appealing to many unpopular, the sustainable lease appeals to a Kauai households, in spite of the small lot substantial number of potential homebuyers. condition. Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 32 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 Sixty-five percent of the prospective buyer It was interesting to note that 23 percent of households who prefer a small-lot SFD are households interested in a MFD reported that current homeowners, 32 percent currently they could afford to pay more than $2,000 for occupy their residence without payment. The monthly rent while only 17 percent of those who majority (81%) currently live in a single-family prefer a SFD could afford payments at that level. home, while the rest live in multi-family dwellings There were 52 percent of households with a such as condos or apartments. preference for MFD that indicated they were not sure how much they could afford to pay, which Just over 36 percent of the potential small-lot might suggest that other households in this SFD buyer households earn less than 80 percent category may have overestimated their ability to of the HUD median income for their county, while pay. nearly one-quarter (24%) earn between 80 and 140 percent and 40 percent have household Table 16. Current and Affordable Housing incomes of over 140 percent of the HUD median. Payment, Kauai Movers, 2011 Table 15. Current and Preferred Housing, Kauai Small- Not Buyers, 2011 Lot SFD MFD Sure Total Small- Total Monthly Mortgage Payment Lot Not Up to$499 9.0°% 23.6% 9.3% JL SFD MFD Sure Total $500 to$1,099 4.1% 3.89/ Total Households 1,869 233 89 2,191 $1,100 to$1,399 8.5% 7.89/ Current Tenancy $1,400 to$1,999 23.1% 76.4% 24.4% Own 65.4% 22.1% 56.4% 61.2% $2,000 to$3,000 26.7% 28.5% 25.7% Rent 31.6% 65.8% 43.6% 35.2% Over$3,000 22.9% 71.5% 23.6% Occupy w/o pmt 2.9% 12.1% 3.6% Already paid for 5.7% 5.49/ Current Home Type Total Monthly Rent Payment SFD 80.7% 100% 100% 83.6% Less than$800 14.7% 72.89/ 23.9% MFD 19.3% 16.4% $800 to$1,099 19.5% 11.2% 61.5% 20.2% HUD Income Category $1,100 to$1,399 18.2% 14.1% less than 30% 7.5% 12.1% 77% $1,400 to$1,699 18.89/ 38.5% 16.6% 30 to 50% 6.2% 5.3% $1,700 to$1,999 21.6% 16.0°% 19.5% Over$2,000 7.2% 5.69/ 51 to 80% 22.6% 41.5% 16.6% 24.4% Affordable Monthly Mortgage Payment 81%to 120% 9.3% 43.1% 9.7% Up to$499 5.9% 12.0°% 6.49/ 121%to 140% 14.5% 28.6% 15.4% $500 to$1,099 10.69/ 9.1% 141%to 180% 18.9% 26.9% 17.2% $1,100 to$1,399 6.5% 5.69/ more than 180% 1 21.0% 1 17.8% 1 13.3% 1 20.3% $1,400 to$1,999 18.69/ 8.6% 16.8% Source: Housing Demand Survey, 2011. $2,000 to$3,000 30.89/ 5.2% 13.5% 27.3% Over$3,000 17.49/ 22.7% 27.0% 18.3% Those who prefer to live in a MFD generally paid Not Sure 10.2% 51.5% 59.6% 16.5% less each month for housing than those who Source: Housing Demand Survey, 2011. prefer a smaller-lot SFD (Table 16). Residents who are unsure how much they can afford to pay While a substantial number of Kauai's each month were also more likely to prefer the prospective buyers were willing to accept a SFD MFD option, while those with higher current on a small lot, the lot size requirements among housing payments or with the ability to afford these households varied. Close to forty percent higher monthly amounts in the future opted for reported the need for a lot with more than 6,000 the smaller-lot SFD. square feet. Eighteen percent of small-lot SFD buyers need at least 5,000 square feet and an additional 26 percent require between 4,000 and Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 33 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 5,000 square feet of space. An equal number of The income levels of people who will be active in these households indicated that they could Hawaii's housing market over the next few accept 3,000 to 4,000 square feet or were years tend to reflect their transportation unsure what size lot they needed (9% each). behavior. People who use public transportation have the lowest incomes. Non-commuters are a close second, followed by short commuters. HOUSING AND TRANSPORTATION Households with medium and long commutes also have median or higher incomes. Impact of Commuting on Housing Choice When we looked at housing preferences among this group, we found relationships that were As housing and transportation choices become much stronger than those for current living more aligned, housing planners focus greater arrangements. Commuters were likely to prefer attention on public transportation solutions. This home ownership and single-family units. Non- is especially true in high-priced housing markets commuters and users of public transportation like Hawaii. Our normal fuel and operational were more likely to opt for rental units and multi- costs are high relative to other states, and the family structures. fuel crises of recent years exacerbate the problem. In response, the 2011 Housing Demand Survey included our first set of items on Designing Housing with Distance in Mind transportation alternatives. Respondents to the Housing Demand Survey Several items in the Survey were devoted to that are planning to move within the State were measuring transportation need generated by asked about how many days that they commute commuting to school or work in Hawaii each week, commute times, use of public households. We were able to gather commuting transportation, and the importance of proximity to requirements for all adults in the household, school or work. ascertain zip codes for homes and associated commuting destinations, and measure Nearly 70 percent of respondents statewide said commuting time. Those data provide a rich they commute further than one mile at least 4 source of information on the issue that will days each week. Across the State of Hawai i, the support further analysis for a long time. median travel time for daily commuters is 25 minutes one way. Commuters on Oahu spend Only respondents who planned to move within about 30 minutes each day commuting to work the State answered the transportation questions. or school, while commuters on the Neighbor As a result, the transportation preferences Islands spend about 20 minutes commuting to represent the relationship between transportation their destination. and housing choice as opposed to a population- wide study of commuter transportation issues. Twenty-four percent of households include one or more members who use public transportation For this report, we combined all of that to get from home to work or school three or more information in one scale measuring commuter times each week. These households that use travel time. That measure will be our focus in public transportation are disproportionately this section of the report. renters and parents with children or multi-family households. Table 17 presents the profile of households with different commuter travel times. Table 18 shows the housing preferences for commuters and non- commuters, and Table 19 shows commuter reactions to housing and transportation issues. Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 34 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 Housing and Transportation Alternatives eight percent said they were not certain 28. On this issue, commute time had almost no impact For our straightforward tradeoff question to and the majority of all commuter groups said the measure the strength of price versus a short option did not interest them. commute, results were mixed. Overall, about 46 percent of prospective movers would opt for a While commute time did not have a significant shorter commute and 41 percent would opt for impact on interest in living near the rail stations, the lower price. The remaining 13 percent were planned tenancy was influential. When not sure how they would decide. households that plan to buy their next unit on Oahu were presented with the rail station Respondents with a long commute frequently scenario, 19 percent of buyers rated this as an opted for opted for the shorter commute time. extremely important consideration, while an People who use public transportation were much additional 67 percent rated it as somewhat more likely (57%) to prefer a lower price over an important 29 increased commute time. When those who intend to rent their next unit In two different locations in the Housing Demand were presented with the same scenario involving Survey, we asked people in the market about apartments located near a rail station, 45 percent how transportation issues might affect their unit rated it as an extremely important consideration choices the next time they move. Asked if they and an equal number judged it a somewhat would prefer a unit that is closer to their important consideration. As frequent users of workplace, 57 percent of all mover households the public transportation system, it is not said "no" and 40 percent said "yes'. With the surprising that renters would be more likely to exception of non-commuter households, in which factor the rail system into decisions regarding the 78 percent said they would not choose to move location of their next housing unit. closer to their workplace, commuting time had very little influence on the results. As the rail stations are not yet in place, the prospect of them may have been difficult to When we asked about moving closer to the bus incorporate into respondents' set of housing stop, respondents were again divided. Overall, alternatives. about 50 percent of people who will move said that being closer to the bus stop was not critical to them in making their housing decisions (49%). About 47 percent said they would like to be closer to a bus stop. However, on this item, 71 percent of current public transportation users were interested in moving closer to a stop. Commuters with a commute time of 15 minutes or less were least interested in living near a bus stop in the future. With the new rail transit system under 28 Having many years experience asking questions about development, residents on Oahu will soon have options that do not currently exist, we should caution the reader against over-interpreting this information. It does an alternative to the bus. Over thirty percent represent popular opinion at this time. As we move (31%) of mover households in the City and closer to having rail stations in place, acceptance may County of Honolulu said they would like their increase dramatically. next home to be in close proximity to the light rail since the majority of households that plan to buy their next unit expressed a preference for single-family stations currently under development. About 31 dwellings and were unlikely to use public transportation, percent said "yes', 61 percent said "no", and the importance attributed may be related to the rail station, the multi-family unit, the concept of using public transportation or all of these. Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 35 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 Table 17: Effect of Commuting on Housing Choice, 2011 Commuter Travel Time Situation use Snort Not a Public Commute Moderate Long Commuter Total Transit Only Commute Commute Household Households Total Effective Demand Mover Households 33,286 24,965 33,956 18,362 27,547 138,116 Tradeoff: Commute vs. Price Prefer a Shorter Commute 32% 48% 55% 56% 44% 46% Prefer a Lower Price 57% 38% 33% 32% 38% 41% Undecided 11% 14% 12% 12% 18% 13% Prefer to Move Closer to Work Yes 56% 35% 45% 42% 18% 40% No 39% 64% 51% 56% 78% 57% Not Sure 4% 1% 4% 2% 4% 3% Prefer to Move Closer to Bus Stops Yes 71% 26% 42% 35% 53% 47% No 26% 66% 54% 62% 44% 49% Not Sure 3% 9% 4% 3% 3% 4% City and County of Honolulu 27,413 14,974 24,462 13,321 17,259 97,429 Effective Demand Mover Households Interested in Moving Close to Rail Stations Yes 35% 17% 32% 35% 33% 31% No 48% 75% 64% 64% 63% 61% Not Sure 17% 9% 4% 1% 4% 8% Importance of Rail Stations in my Next Housing Choice Extremely Important 36% 25% 23% 36% 28% Somewhat Important 53% 1000/ 55% 53% 34% 54% Not Very Important 100/ 18% 3% 19% 12% Would Never Move Next to a Rail Station 1% 2% 19% 1% 4% Not Sure 2% 11% 2% Source: Housing Demand Survey, 2011. Note: Trade-off, Closer to Work and Closer to Bus Stops data are for the State of Hawai i. Data regarding rail stations are for the City and County of Honolulu only. The estimated number of households who were percentage (14% to 17%) in all other counties. planning to move in the next several years was Long commutes affected about the same 138,116. Of those, 81 percent were commuter proportion of people in all counties (12% to households — had one or more adult members 14%). Commuters in Maui and Hawaii typically who traveled to work or school at least three made short commutes, while moderate commute days a week during peak travel times. Just less times were more common among commuters on than a quarter of the population (24%) made that Oahu and Kauai. commute using public transportation. The remaining 57 percent were commuters who use We also see that the majority of those who use their own vehicles to travel to work or school. public transportation are renters, while homeowners most often make a moderate daily There were more commuters on Oahu than in commute. Because renters are more likely to be Hawaii, Maui or Kauai Counties. Public in multi-family dwellings, it follows that residents transportation was used by 28 percent of the of multi-family dwellings are more likely than potential movers on Oahu and about half that Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 36 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 residents in single-family homes to utilize public earn 80 percent of the HUD median or less. transportation or to be a non-commuter. Members of higher income households, however, account for the majority of commuters Results also indicated that the majority of non- with a moderate (16 to 35 minutes) to long (more commuters and those using public transportation than 35 minutes) daily commute. Table 18: Commuter Household Characteristics, 2011 Commuter Travel Time Situation Use Short Not a Public Commute Moderate Long Commuter Total Transit Only Commute Commute Household Households Total Effective Demand Mover Households 33,286 24,965 33,956 18,362 27,547 138,116 County of Residence City & County of Honolulu 82% 600/. 72% 73% 65% 71% County of Maui 7% 18% 12% 100/0 12% 12% County of Hawaii 8% 16% 11% 12% 18% 13% Count of Kauai 3% 6% 5% 5% 5% 5% Current Housing Tenure Own 18% 32% 45% 46% 33% 349/ Rent 82% 68% 55% 54% 67% 66% Type of Unit Single-family 42% 39% 63% 71% 46% 51% Multi-family 58% 61% 37% 29% 54% 49% HUD 30% or less 38% 31% 149/ 12% 22% 249/ 30% to 50% 23% 8% 19% 9% 19% 17% 50% to 80% 21% 26% 15% 21% 28% 22% 80% to 120% 6% 9% 18% 9% 6% 100/0 120% to 140% 49/ 3% 6% 19% 5% 7% 140% to 180% 49/ 8% 9% 11% 7% 8% Over 180% 1 49/ 1 149/ 1 19% 1 19% 1 13% 1 13% Source: Housing Demand Survey, 2011. Non-Commuters do not commute further than one mile at least 4 days each week. Note. Short Commute: 15 minutes or less, Moderate Commute: 16-35 minutes, Long Commute: more than 35 minutes, Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 37 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 Table 19: Commuting and Preferred Housing Situation, 2011 Commuter Travel Time Situation Use Short Not a Public Commute Moderate Long Commuter Total Transit Only Commute Commute Household Households Total Effective Demand 33,286 24,965 33,956 18,362 27,547 138,116 Mover Households Preferred Housing Tenure Homeowner 31% 53% 52% 53% 29% 43% Renter 57% 41% 40% 40% 51% 46% Other 13% 7% 9% 7% 20% 11% Preferred Unit Type Single-family 58% 49% 61% 61% 44% 55% Multi-family 40% 45% 35% 35% 49% 41% Other/Undecided 1 2% 1 6% 1 4% 1 4% 1 7% 1 4% Source: Housing Demand Survey, 2011. Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 38 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 SPECIAL NEEDS HOUSING IN HAWAI'I The present HHPS marks the first time the study vouchers statewide, 1,144 were elderly focused attention on housing demand and households. requirements among special needs populations. The Hawaii Department of Business, Economic Included in the special needs populations are Development and Tourism (DBEDT) predicts that, by 2030, there will be an additional 142,000 • Elderly; elderly households across Hawaii (see Table • Frail Elderly; 20). In order to accommodate the large number • Exiting Offenders; of elderly residents, DBEDT has forecasted the • Persons with Alcohol and Other Drug need for close to 55,000 new housing units Addictions; equipped with amenities designed to serve • Persons with Disabilities; elderly households by 2030 (see Table 21). Sixty • Persons Diagnosed with HIV or AIDS; percent of the new elderly housing units would be • Persons with Severe Mental Illness; ownership units, with the remaining 40 percent • Victims of Domestic Violence; and for elderly renter households. • Emancipated Foster Youth. A subset of the elderly population, frail elderly are identified as those persons with physical or mental disabilities that may interfere with the Elderly and Frail Elderly Persons ability to independently perform activities of daily living (i.e., bathing, dressing, toileting, and meal Among the 1.36 million residents of the State of preparation). In the State of Hawaii, there are Hawaii, approximately 18 percent (241,984 22,752 households that include one or more frail persons) are age 62 or older 30. An additional elderly persons (Table 22). 35,376 Hawaii residents will age into the elderly classification within the next two years. As the baby boomers age, elderly persons are projected Housing Needs and Challenges to account for more than one-quarter of Hawaii's population by 2030. In 2011, the Housing Demand Survey evaluated the need for specific housing unit amenities The Hawaii Public Housing Authority (HPHA) among the elderly and frail elderly. The survey maintains 6,404 affordable housing units across found that approximately 38 percent of elderly the State. Of these, 1,771 units are designated residents needed housing unit amenities such as for the elderly.31 ramps, railings, grab bars and emergency call systems. The number of families on the public housing waiting list is an indicator of the need for Not only do the frail elderly need these kinds of affordable rental housing opportunities. Of the quality of life modifications in their homes, they close to 9,000 households on the public housing also need to be in close proximity to retail wait list, elderly families account for one-fifth of establishments and medical facilities with these (1,767 households). In 2009, of the more convenient access to public transportation. than 17,000 families on the wait lists for housing W U.S. Census Bureau Decennial Census 2010. 31 http://hawaii.gov/dbedUhhfdc/resources/Affordable- Housing-I nventory.pdf Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 39 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 Table 20. Elderly Residents, State of Hawaii 1980-2030 Age of Hawaii Residents 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 Total 60+ 113,940 173,730 207,001 277,054 351,650 410,450 % of Total Population 11.8% 15.7% 17.1% 20.3% 23.6% 25.2% % change 52.5% 19.2% 33.8% 26.9% 16.7% Total 85+ 5,560 10,397 17,564 30,238 33,800 40,350 % of Total Population 0.6% 0.9% 1.4% 2.2% 2.3% 2.5% % change 87.0% 68.9% 72.2% 11.8% 19.4% Total Population 964,690 1,108,230 1,211,540 1,360,301 1,489,550 1,630,450 % change 14.9% 9.3% 12.3% 9.5% 9.5% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Hawai'i Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism. Table 21. Housing Demand for Elderly Households, Forecast by County and State of Hawaii for 2030 County of Residence Honolulu Hawaii Maui Kauai State New Elderly Households a 97,524 18,521 6,979 18,714 141,738 New Units with Amenities Needed by 2030 38,799 8,398 2,644 4,480 54,816 For Owners 21,435 6,301 1,971 2,410 32,560 For Renters 17,364 2,097 673 2,070 22,256 Addditional Needed Units Per Year For Owners 893 263 82 100 1,357 For Renters 724 87 28 86 927 a DBEDT Estimated elderly population in 2030 minus elderly population in 2006 Source: Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism. Table 22. Frail Elderly Households,Counties and State of Hawaii, 2011 County of Residence Honolulu Hawaii Maui Kauai Count Pct Count Pct runt Pct Count Pct Households with One or More Members Age 60+ 165,709 69.2% 34,123 14.2% 26,487 11.1% 12,781 5.3% 239,493 100.0% Households with Frail Elderly Members 15,577 9.4% 3,958 11.6% 2,331 8.8% 984 7.7% 22,752 9.5% Source: Housing Demand Survey, 2011 Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 40 ©SMS, Inc. November,2011 Exiting Offenders Persons with Alcohol or Drug Addictions When incarcerated offenders are released from In 2004, the statewide total number of persons in one of Hawai is correctional facilities, housing is need of alcohol and/or drug treatment was often their most immediate concern. Although estimated to be 78,896. This represents an some exiting offenders will return to their pre- increase of approximately 10 percent between imprisonment residence upon their release, most 1998 and 2004. will be in need of affordable rental housing options. Approximately five percent of these individuals (3,759) are adolescents in grades 6 through 12 In 2009, approximately 1,230 offenders entered who are in need of treatment for alcohol or drug probation following incarceration. An additional use, or both. 733 inmates were paroled back into the community.32 Alcohol is the drug of choice among the majority of the 78,896 adults in need of substance abuse According to the State Judiciary System, each treatment. Three out of four persons are in need year there are about 495 probationers in the state of treatment for alcohol abuse, 13 percent for who have special housing needs. Of these, 25 illegal drug abuse, and 10 percent for abuse of percent are drug court probationers, 10 percent both drugs and alcohol. are considered "high-risk," and the rest are general probationers. In addition, the Hawaii Paroling Authority reports that approximately 375 Housing Needs and Challenges people released from prison on parole each year have special housing needs. According to providers, there is a need for more clean and sober housing during the recovery period. The most pressing need is for clean and Housing Needs and Challenges sober houses for women with children, followed Hawaii currently offers several housing by a similar housing option for single women. alternatives to exiting offenders. These options are summarized in Table 23. The importance of alternative housing options for exiting offenders is underscored by the results of several recent studies. Offenders participating in halfway house programs were found to commit fewer and less severe offenses during a one-year outcome analysis (at a statistically significant level) than those who did not participate 33 Participants also performed better on a range of other outcome measures, such as finding and holding a job, being self-supporting, and participating in self-improvement programs. 32 Probation and Parole in the United States. Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2009. 33 Seiter, Richard and Kadela, Karen. Prisoner Reentry: What Works, What Does Not, and What Is Promising. Crime& Delinquency, Vol. 49 No. 3, July 2003. pp. 360- 388. Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 41 ©SMS, Inc. November,2011 Table 23. Transitional and upportive Housing Options for Exiting Offenders, 2011 Program Count Capacity Gender Served Duration Ponahawai Ola Hawaii 20 studio & two 2BR units Both max. 2 years Home of Reawakening Oahu 100 womer✓year Women min. 6 months BEST House Maui 25 residents Men min. 2 years *Being Empowered and Safe Together Table 24. Dependence on Alcohol and/or Illicit Drugs, State and Counties of Hawal'i, 2008 Dependence on/Abuse of Alcohol Dependence/ Illicit Drug Dependence/ Illicit Drugs, Alcohol or Abuse in Past Year Abuse in Past Year' Both in Past Year' Honolulu Count 84,263 23,163 98,848 Percent 8.8% 2.4% 10.49/ Havva Count 14,880 5,016 17,749 i i Percent 8.00/0 2.7% 9.6% Maui Count 12,108 3,484 13,734 Percent 7.8% 2.3% 8.9% Maui and Kauai** Count 16,933 5,149 19,618 Percent 7.6% 2.3% 8.8% State Count 116,170 33,327 136,302 Percent 1 8.5% 1 2.5% 1 10.00/0 *Count represents unduplicated individuals **Aseparate Kauai estimate is not being reported because of low precision. NOTE: Dependence or abuse is based on definitions found in the 4th edition ofthe Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-I\�. Illicit Drugs include marijuana/hashish, cocaine (including crack), heroin, hallucinogens, inhalants, or prescription-type psychotherapeutics used nonmedically,these estimates are based on data from original questions, excluding those on the use of over-the-counter drugs or new methamphetam ine items thatwere added in 2005 and 2006. Source: SAMHSA, Office of Applied Studies, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2006, 2007, and 2008. Persons with Disabilities are more likely than residents without disabilities to have incomes below the poverty line. In 2009, there were approximately 130,500 people in the state of Hawaii with a form of Among Hawaii residents with disabilities, 45 disabiIity34. This represents approximately 10.6 percent are between the ages of 18 and 64 and percent of the State of Hawaii's non- considered as being of working age. More than institutionalized population. half of all persons with disabilities, however, are not in the labor force (53%; 62,300 individuals). Persons with disabilities require special housing Among persons with disabilities in the work force, considerations not only to accommodate physical 14 percent are presently unemployed compared limitations, but also as a result of their financial to eight percent of persons without disabilitieS35 challenges. Hawaii's residents with disabilities 35 Source: Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics hftp://www.bis.gov/cps/cpsdisability.htm 34 American Community Survey,2009. Hawari Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 42 ©SMS, Inc. November,2011 Table 25. Disability, Employment, and Poverty accounting for 17 percent of the close to 9,000 Percentages, State and Counties of Hawaii, 2009 households on the public housing wait list. onolulu Hawaii W& Kauai Households with persons with disabilities on public housing wait lists may also be on the wait Total Disabled Population 87,950 22,004 13,186 7,295 130,435 list for Section 8 housing vouchers. About one- Type of Disability fourth of Hawaii residents with disabilities (21%) Sensory 17.5 21.9 13.4 17 17.6 receive Section 8 assistance. Nearly 3,000 of the Physical 34.7 39.9 31.8 29 34.6 over 17,000 families waiting for Section 8 rental Mental 19.8 27.8 15.4 17.1 20.5 assistance have members with disabilities (17%). Self-care 11.5 12.9 13.6 9.3 11.6 Go-outside-home 21.2 21.9 14.1 17.5 20.4 Employment/PovedyStatus Persons with Developmental Disabilities Employed 42.5 39.1 55 42.7 42.9 Below povedy level 14.7 21 9.7 18.5 15.5 The Department of Health, Developmental Sources: ACS 2009; Center on Disability Studies Annual Disabilities Division reported that 3,292 Hawaii Report 2009-2010. residents with developmental disabilities were being served.37 Nearly one-quarter of Hawaii residents with In 2008, there were 2,426 adults with disabilities (23%) lives below the poverty line, Developmental Disabilities/Mental Retardation compared to only ten percent of those without (DD/MR) living in various residential settings36. disabilities in the population. The median income Of that number, 2,230 lived with their family and for households with persons with disabilities 196 lived in settings other than with family. There households statewide was $59,100, 22 percent were 14 individuals who wanted to live lower than the median for households with no independently in their own home (with or without disability. The disparity varied by County. supports), but would require a rental subsidy to Incomes for workers without disabilities for the help pay for rent. These individuals lived with City & County of Honolulu were 72 percent higher their family, relatives, in an Adult Residential than the incomes of workers with disabilities. Care Home (ARCH) or Adult Foster Home (AFH), or were homeless, but remained in their current Housing Needs and Challenges living situation due to limited resources to assist them to live independently. All of these factors contribute to difficulties finding affordable housing for people with disabilities. Housing Needs and Challenges Hawaii households that include a member with a Although the process may be in place to address disability are almost evenly divided between the individual's choice of residential setting, homeowners and renters, 58 and 42 percent, limited resources are available to support their respectively. Housing units used by persons with choices, like initial deposits and monthly rent disabilities are most often single-family homes payments. Limited resources for Section 8 (72%) or apartments (13%). vouchers, low cost rentals, and rent subsidies, and the high cost of living in Hawaii make it Statewide, about 19 percent of households with challenging for individuals with DD/MR to obtain at least one person with a disability currently live housing and live independently. in public housing36. An additional 1,774 households with a member with a disability are on the wait list for public housing units, 37 City&County of Honolulu Consolidated Plan 2011-2015. 38 Report to the Twenty-Fifth Legislature State of Hawai i, 3s HHPS Housing Demand Survey 2011 2009. Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 43 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 Table 26. Total Persons with Disabilities, State and Counties of Hawaii, 2009 Honolulu Hawaii Maui Kauai to Total Population 849,255 174,676 144,047 63,571 1,231,549 Under 18 years: 23.4% 23.4% 23.1% 23.0% 23.4% With one type of disability 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 0.1% 0.4% With two or more types of disability 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.3% 0.1% 18 to 64 years: 61.3% 62.6% 64.4% 63.2% 62.0% With one type of disability 2.7% 3.2% 3.3% 2.9% 2.8% With two or more types of disability 1.7% 3.4% 1.3% 2.3% 1.9% 65 years and over: 15.2% 14.0% 12.5% 13.8% 14.7% With one type of disability 2.2% 2.5% 2.2% 2.9% 2.3% With two or more types of disability 3.2% 3.0% 1.9% 3.0% 3.0% Total Disabled Population 1 10.4% 1 12.6% 1 9.2% 1 11.5% 1 10.6% Source: ACS 2009 Persons with HIV/AIDS Gregory House is a non-profit agency in Honolulu serving around 165 persons with HIV/AIDS. The Included in this population are persons with agency maintains 46 rental assistance dwellings acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) or designated for low-income Hawaii families with related diseases or any condition arising from the HIV or AIDS. It also has 11 beds in transitional etiologic agent for acquired immunodeficiency housing for single adults with HIV/AIDS. Gregory syndrome, including infection with human House currently has 75 individuals on a wait list immunodeficiency virus (HIV). for housing, all of whom are homeless or at risk for homelessness. According to the annual HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report issued by the Hawaii State Department According to the National Coalition for the of Health at the end of 2010, the cumulative Homeless, lack of affordable housing is a critical number of individuals diagnosed with HIV/AIDS problem facing a growing number of people living in Hawaii is 4,209. Of those, 55 percent (2,318 with AIDS and other illnesses caused by HIV39. persons) are confirmed living. Due to recent People with HIV/AIDS may lose their jobs due to changes in the method for counting HIV and discrimination or because of the fatigue and AIDS cases, a notable increase in the number of periodic hospitalization caused by HIV-related HIV cases will likely appear in the 2011 report. illness. They may also find their incomes drained by the costs of health care. The 2008 Hawaii AIDS Clinical Research Program (HACRP) Statewide HIV/AIDS Medical Persons living with HIV/AIDS who do not have Care Needs Assessment indicates that there are stable housing may lack ongoing HIV care and 2,700 confirmed people with HIV living in Hawaii. often rely on more costly care from emergency and acute care facilities. They have poorer Housing Needs and Challenges health outcomes and shorter liveS40. Stable 39 "HIV/AIDS and Homelessness." NCH Fact Sheet #9. The HACRP survey found that 74 percent of the National Coalition for the Homeless. August, 2007. 2,700 confirmed Hawaii residents with HIV were hfto://wvvw.nationalhomeless.ora/oublications/facts/HIV. in need of housing assistance (63% long term �df and 11% short term). This finding indicates a 40 Housing is Cost-Effective HIV Prevention and Care. need for nearly 2,000 housing units. The North American Housing 8 HIV/AIDS Research Summit Series. February 2011. Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 44 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 housing for those people can reduce emergency While many mentally ill individuals receive visits by 35 percent and hospitalizations by 57 treatment from private physicians, it is highly percent41. Housing assistance leads to savings likely that a large number of Hawaii residents in avoidable health services that more than offset with severe mental illness are not receiving the costs of housing interventions42 treatment or support. The Maui AIDS Foundation serves as a Housing Needs and Challenges centralized administrative agency to provide tenant-based rental assistance; short-term rental, Service providers and advocates who work mortgage and utility payments; permanent closely with Hawaii's mentally ill population note housing placement and supportive services for four types of challenges related to finding 350 eligible residents in the Counties of Hawaii, adequate housing for members of this group. Kauai and Maui. Also serving the HIV/AIDS population is the 1. Insufficient funding to provide Section 8 Neighbor Island HIV/AIDS Coalition (NIHAC). housing vouchers needed is historically a Established in 1998, NIHAC is a cooperative challenge, and was exacerbated when the effort of the three community-based AIDS service economic crisis led to severe budget cuts. organizations (Malama-Pono Kauai AIDS 2 Because there are rules barring persons with Project, the Maui AIDS Foundation, and the a history of drug abuse from public housing, Hawaii Island HIV/AIDS Foundation) serving the and substance abuse is extremely common islands of Kauai, Molokai, Lanai, Maui and among persons with SPMI, finding Hawaii. Out of this coalition arose the Neighbor appropriate housing for persons with SPMI is Island Housing Program (NIHP), which is funded by both formula and competitive HOPWA grants. difficult. NIHP provides tenant-based rental assistance, 3. Employment opportunities for mentally ill short-term rental, mortgage and utility payments, housing placement assistance services, as well individuals are often very limited so the as supportive services/ case management at the likelihood of them becoming and remaining gainfully employed is not high. respective islands AIDS Service Organizations. 4. A lack of blended housing that provides both Persons with Severe Persistent Mental shelter and supportive services makes it Illness difficult to place SPMI patients in suitable housing. According a report issued by the National According to the Community Housing Plan 2008- Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) in 2010, close 2012 published by the AMHD, approximately to 32,000 of Hawaii's residents live with severe 9,600 of the persons with severe and persistent mental illness. Of those, about 11,000 are mental illness have extremely low incomes and receiving services from the State Department 4of are in need of housing assistance. Of these, Health's Adult Mental Health Division (AMHD). approximately 30 percent (2,880) are living in stabilized housing. Another 2,094 mentally ill persons currently receive AMHD subsidized http://nationalaidshousin a.ora/PDF/Factsheets- housing. Cost%20Effective.pdf 4' op. ca. Although the need for affordable housing among az Bauer, J., Battist, A, & Bamberger, J.D. Housing the the remaining 4,626 will be addressed by Homeless with HIV in San Francisco. Presented at the AMHD's anticipated production of 1,670 units by North American Housing and nd HI HIV/AIDS Research Summit V.Toronto, Ontario, June 2010. 43 AMHD. Community Housing Plan for Adults with Severe and Persistent Mental Illness, 2008-2012. Nov. 2007. Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 45 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 201244, nearly 3,000 Hawaii residents with SPMI homeless women reported staying in an abusive will still need housing. relationship because they had nowhere else to go.46 Victims of Domestic Violence As communities continue to experience job losses and lower community resources, 75 It is estimated that 1 in 4 women will experience percent of programs surveyed in the 2010 domestic violence at some point during her NNEDV study reported a rise in demand for lifetime. With females accounting for half of services. At the same time, 94 percent reported Hawaii's population of 1.36 million, that is close funding decreases. to 170,000 women subjected to domestic violence. In Hawaii, as in the nation, domestic The number of people in need of federal rent violence is one of the most under-reported crimes subsidies to afford housing outweighs the so the true number of victims is unknown. number of units available, causing some people to remain on the waiting list for years47. On September 15, 2010, the National Network to End Domestic Violence (NNEDV) conducted a Victims and survivors of domestic violence often Census of Domestic Violence Services among encounter difficulties finding housing, as their sixteen agencies in Hawaii that provide services history of abuse may have caused poor to victims of domestic violence 45. On that day, employment, credit or rental histories48. These 525 Hawaii residents sought assistance. Among individuals need access to safe, adequate, and them, 253 domestic violence victims (48%) found affordable housing in order to achieve refuge in emergency shelters or transitional independence and permanently end the cycle of housing provided by domestic violence programs. violence. The remaining 272 adults and children received non-residential assistance and services, including Emancipated Foster Youth individual counseling, legal advocacy, and children's support groups. In addition, there were Estimates by the Hawaii Department of Human 95 unmet requests for service during the study Services in 2010 indicate that 150 youth per year period, five of which were for emergency shelter leave the foster care system through or transitional housing. emancipation at age 18, and an additional 50 youth leave the system at age 16 for other Bridge to Success, a transitional shelter for reasons.49 The vast majority of these youth women and children on Oahu, has eight housing (85%) live on Oahu. units. Family House on Oahu has 15 units. Housing Needs and Challenges 46 Homeless in Minnesota, 2003. Wilder Research Center. Many victims of domestic violence are forced to February 2004. stay with or return to their abusive partners due 47 Davies, J. & Hammeal-Urban, R. Federal Housing and to a lack of available shelter or affordable Domestic Violence: Introduction to Programs, Policy, and Advocacy Opportunities. National Resource Center housing. One study found that 46 percent of on DV, 1999. "$ Red, Susan & Krishner, Lisa. Subsidized Housing and the Unique Needs of DV Victims. National Center on 44 AMHD. Community Housing Plan for Adults with Severe Law and Policy, 2000. and Persistent Mental Illness, 200 8-2012. Nov. 2007. 49 "Statement of Need for Family Unification Program and p.22. Certification of Cooperation with the U.S. Department of 45 Domestic Violence Counts: Hawaii Summary. National Housing and Urban Development" from Lillian Koller, Network to End Domestic Violence, 2010. Director, Hawaii Department of Human Services. http://vAvw.nnedv.ora/docs/Census/DVCounts20lO/DVC January 21, 2009. As cited in City&County of Honolulu ounts10 StateSummary HI Color.pdf Consolidated Plan 2011-2015. Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 46 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 Upon exiting the foster care system, some youth supportive housing options for each of the nine may be able to remain with their foster parents or groups targeted this year. return to living with their immediate or extended The data have several shortcomings. They are family. Many of these young adults, however, incomplete; based on different definitions of size, transition into tenuous living arrangements, often type, and need; and may include significant in substandard and/or overcrowded conditions. duplication. Some of the data we collected are National studies suggest that approximately 30 several years old, and based on self-report or percent of former foster youth will experience rough estimation. Total population counts are homelessness shortly after leaving foster care. often based on individuals served rather than When applied to Oahu, this would suggest that persons affected. Figures are rarely taken from between 32 and 45 former foster care youths are systematic records of housing need. This type of at risk for homelessness each year. data is obviously not ideal for quantifying the actual number of individuals in need of housing Housing Needs and Challenges assistance. At this time, it is not possible to estimate housing Most of the 150 youth exiting the foster care needs among Hawaii's special needs groups system each year need assistance to find or accurately. We believe the data will allow us to maintain permanent housing. While connections improve on the numbers used in previous to housing resources have improved, more could Consolidated Plans, but developing estimates be done to support foster youth planning for that can support effective housing planning will transition and finding affordable housing. take additional time and effort. A number of service providers emphasized the need to create affordable housing for former foster youth and/or improve access to Section 8 housing. The need for more "youth-friendly" independent living programs and group homes50 that serve the particular needs of foster youth has also been emphasized. Some potentially viable residential alternatives would need to make simple changes to their policies in order to allow youth to work late hours or attend evening courses, for example.51 Special Needs Housing Summary Table 27 presents a summary of the data assembled as part of this study. It shows population counts, housing demand, and 5u The term group home is used here to represent the various types of community-based, residential facilities where a number of individuals with special needs live and receive services, including foster homes and other therapeutic residential settings. 51 Center on the Family, University of Hawaii at Manoa prepared for Hawaii Community Foundation and Victoria S. Bradley L. Geist Foundation, "Jim Casey Youth Opportunities Initiative," May 2009 Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 47 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 Table 27. Summary of Special Needs Households in Need of Supportive Housing, State of Hawaii Affordable HH In Need of Special Needs %of Total Housing Supportive Special Needs Population Pop. Count Population Inventory Housing Elderly 247,678 18.2% 6,184 2,081 Frail elderly 8,396 0.6% 219 Exiting offenders 1,963 0.1% Data UA` 870 Persons wilh alcohol/drug addictions 136,302 10.0% Data UA Data UA Persons wilh disabilities 130,435 9.6% Data UA Data UA Persons with developmental disabilities 2,426 0.2% Data UA 14 Persons wilh HIV/AIDS 2,317 0.2% Data UA 600-1600 Persons with severe mental illness 32,000 2.4% 284 9,600 Victims of domeslic violence 575 0.0% Data UA Data UA Youti exiling bsbr care 150 1 0.0% 1 Data UA 150 'Data Unavailable Elderly data from Census 2010 Frail elderly data from HPS Housing Demand Survey 2011 Exiling offenders data from Bureau of Justice Statistics, Probation and Parole in the United Stabs-2009. Notavailable atfie County level so State data was distributed according to proportion of the populalion. Substance abuse data from SAMHSA,Ofice of Applied Studies, National Survey on Drug Use and Health,2006-2008 Persons with disabilities data from ACS 2009 Persons wilh developmental disabilities data from DDD, CMISB- Reportb the 2009 Legislature pursuantb Act303, SLH 2006 HIV/AIDS data from 2011 HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report Mental illness data from Hawaii Departmentof Health,Adult Mental Health Division Domestic violence data from the Hawaii DepartnentOfHuman Services(DHS) Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 48 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 As we now move to a discussion of data issues service providers. Some respondents concluded in estimating housing need among Hawaii's that all their clients had housing needs and there special needs groups, many issues will be were rational bases for that opinion. The brought to light. It is sometimes a very human estimates fall short, however, of the kind of data reaction to look to the providers of information to required for effective housing planning. find fault or lay blame. The investigators in this research found absolutely no evidence that any Housing Inventories: There are two types of government agency or service provider at any data on housing supply for special needs groups. level has ever neglected, ignored, or even First, there are units dedicated to the use of accidentally overlooked the needs of the people members of a specific group. Second, there are under their charge. Quite the contrary, they are housing units in the public, affordable, and capable administrators, sensitive caregivers, and market level inventory that can be used by concerned advocates for their clients. If we have special needs groups. We concentrated on the used words or phrases that convey any other first category. characterization of their work, it was not intended on our part. Any problems we identified are While many agencies could count at least some systemic, not personal, and their solutions units available to their clients, very few had should look to procedures and tactics, not fault exhaustive counts of dedicated units. According finding. to our informants, there are no units available specifically for populations like youth exiting Group Size: Figures in the first data column in foster care or persons with physical disabilities. Table 27 are based on very different definitions. In the case of elderly persons, for instance, the A major issue related to special needs group figures are population counts -- U.S. Census housing is the level of service required by counts of persons 60 years of age or older members of those groups. We found it useful to residing in non-institutionalized housing units in discuss services needs according to three levels the State of Hawaii. In the case of persons with of service required. HIV/AIDS, the estimate is a registry count, the number of persons on the Department of Health Low service clients are members of a special registry of persons with HIV/AIDS. needs group whose need for services housing is very low. Their needs can be met by occasional There may indeed be some persons with access to off-site services and their housing HIV/AIDS who do not appear on the list, but needs accommodated by affordable or even most observers believe it is a reasonably market level housing. accurate estimate of the target group size. In the case of children exiting foster care programs, the Medium service clients have need for services counts are management information reports. In that can be met with off-site or home delivered some cases, these definitions may be services. Their housing needs can be met by problematic. A reliable count of persons with affordable units with access to services. physical or mental disabilities, for instance, may Although not a requirement, public housing never be known. provides particularly useful solution to both those issues. Persons in Need of Housing Assistance: The numbers shown in the fourth data column are High service needs clients may need extensive very rough estimates for most groups and, in services, security, and supervision, the kind of some cases, even rough estimates were not services usually available in group homes. available. Estimates for larger groups like the elderly were taken from Census and survey data. This characterization of clients with different level For most groups, estimates of housing need of service need is particularly useful in dealing were based on experience of agency staff or with housing issues because it make definitions of types of units needed easier. Our informants Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 49 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 understood the system, and reported that this solve social or health problems when the client kind of classification is behind their development has no sustainable housing. of treatment plans or continuum of care for their clients. None of them had specific classification Second, even when housing referrals or system of counts of client according to this placements are part of the program, there is no classification system at this time. outreach or follow-up to ensure that appropriate housing is sustained. That means the client may Unmet Housing Need: Estimating the need for relapse or return to the program for services. three types of housing requires group population estimates for the three types of clients. Even if Third, most agencies serving Hawaii's special we limit our counts to units to serve the high needs groups do not record data on housing need group, figures are spotty. There are group need and have no data reporting system homes reserved for the needs of specific groups designed to support housing planning. Many with high need for services and some of those were able to provide data for us only by are included in Table 26. Where group homes requesting special tabulations or polling their are managed or licensed by the state, full counts staff or contractors. Housing data are not are available. routinely reported to legislators, funders, or evaluators. The numbers are ancillary (at best) Special Needs Housing Issues to their program outcomes and internal planning efforts. There is no reason to make formal The government agencies and service providers definitions, collect data, or make reports on an who care for Hawaii's special needs groups ongoing basis. manage extensive and effective programs to serve those groups. While housing plays a very Finally, the agencies and service providers do important role in caring for clients, documenting not gather housing data because they are housing need is not a specific part of their unaware that providing those data can do any programs. There are several reasons for this. good. They do not think that housing assistance for their clients is available. If there were a place First, most government programs and service to go to obtain housing resources for their providers do not have programmatic elements clients, they would use it. In preparation for designed specifically to address housing needs. obtaining those resources or services, they As one provider put it, "We don't do housing." would prepare housing needs data on a regular That stems from the fact that their programs are basis. not funded to solve housing problems. That does not mean they do not currently use or That does not mean that they do not deal with benefit from federal state and county housing housing. They all agree it is difficult or even programs. There are HUD-funded group homes impossible to deliver effective services to clients in Hawaii that were negotiated through our who have no place to live. Further, among all housing agencies. There are special needs their clients' problems, finding a place to live is group clients who reside in public or affordable the most difficult to solve. With the exception of housing supplied by housing agencies. They are agencies that provide group homes or similar not, however, considered day-to-day solutions to accommodations, housing is often handled by the housing needs of special needs populations. service delivery personnel in the field. For some agencies, that means referring clients to public It also does not mean that agencies that serve housing agencies. special needs groups are uninterested in collaboration that would serve their clients. If Virtually all the providers with whom we spoke housing solutions can be found, they are would agree with the "housing first" philosophy interested in helping plan for them. If that means applied to homelessness. It is very difficult to data are required, they would gather those data. Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 50 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 Issue Summary needed data. The housing agencies cannot provide and reasonably plan to improve the The intent behind the special needs group housing situation of special needs groups housing table in the ConPlan is to provide without data for planning. reliable data to support housing plans. Current data for that table are less than reliable and do It is likely that without improved communication not support effective housing planning. and collaboration the periodic effort to fill out the ConPlan tables is quite likely to continue to Government agencies and service providers that produce inadequate data. serve special needs groups have housing needs and are willing and interested in pursuing Any effort to initiate communication between the possibilities for solving them. We believe that housing agencies and those who serve the includes willingness to provide the data special needs groups is likely to improve the necessary for effective planning. situation. It will, of course be necessary to avoid generating unreasonable expectations at the This study found that communication and beginning, and to expect the full benefits of the coordination between housing agencies and communication to manifest itself with time. special needs groups agencies can be improved to the benefit of all. The current situation does not provide needs group agencies with the service they need, nor the incentive to provide Hawaii Housing Planning Study, 2011 Page 51 ©SMS, Inc. November, 2011 HOMELESSNESS IN HAWAII Since we began counting homeless people in before suddenly became poor. Rather, low-end 1992, Hawaii has worked diligently to housing units disappeared and the poor were understand the origins and nature of the without units to rent. problem. In past HHPS studies, we have sided with those who view homelessness as a housing To those scholars, homeless people are not problem52 rather than an economic or social homeless because of their situation. They are problem. That viewpoint is also found in poor because of their situation. They are Hawaii's primary source of housing policy and homeless because there are no low-priced planning, the Consolidated Plan 53. housing units that poor people can buy or rent. Certainly, homelessness has roots in both Some apply this idea to the most difficult group poverty and in housing stock. There is another to house, those with pathologies to match their school of thought in homeless literature that sees poverty: "Even if there was a way to stabilize the the housing market as the prime source of the mentally ill homeless, or treat the alcoholic and problem and the focus of its solution. drug-addicted homeless, or reintegrate the estranged homeless with their families and In the 1980s, low-end housing units began to friends, almost all would still be poor. As poor disappear from the spectrum of units that serve people, they would then face the same housing our housing markets. We lost single-room problem that all poor people face — an occupancy (SRO) units, rooming houses, insufficient and dwindling supply of low-income dilapidated homes, as well as temporary housing housing"56. units and informal or squatters' housing. The losses occurred due to deterioration, This is an important point. Glaeser notes that abandonment, destruction, redevelopment, providing housing for people with very low gentrification, more stringent regulations and incomes is not a housing policy issue. The codes, and replacement housing. All of these inability of the poor to secure housing has eliminated low-end housing units and drove up nothing to do with the housing market in which the quality and the cost of our housing stock. It they live. The solution lies in providing was about that time, during the mid-1980s, that resources to the poor. But if, as HUD suggests, homelessness surfaced as a public issue 54. the problem is actually tied to the number of housing units available in a specific market, then Some also believe that the plight of the poor there might be a malfunctioning of the market worsened during the same period -- that as their itself, specifically, the inability of the market to housing options were shortened, unemployment produce units when demand is expressed. We lightened their wallets, and their buying power believe this is at least one of the causes of slipped55. The issue is not that there were more homelessness in Hawaii. poor people or that people who were not poor Homeless Data 52 Hawaii Housing Policy Study, 2006, Homeless Study 53 Report, State of Hawaii, p. 89. There are two main sources of data on Hawai`i's State of Hawai i, Consolidated Plan,2010-2014, prepared by Housing Development and Finance homeless population: the Homeless Point-in- Corporation. Time (PIT) Count and the state's Homeless 54 Angel, Shlomo, (2000). Housing policy matters: A Management Information System (HMIS). global analysis. Cambridge, England: Oxford University Press, p. 324. 55 Rossi, Peter H. (1989), Down and out in America: The Wright, James D., Beth A. Rubin, 1991. Is origins of homelessness. Chicago: University of homelessness a housing problem? Housing Policy Chicago Press. Debate,5(Issue 2): 177-202. Hawari Housing Policy Study,2011 -DRAFT Page 52 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 The PIT Count is a "snapshot" of the homeless HMIS is a centralized electronic data system to population designed to produce statistically which homeless service providers receiving reliable, unduplicated counts or estimates of State or Federal funds submit intake and exit homeless persons in sheltered and unsheltered data on clients they serve. The annual locations on a single night57. PIT Counts Homeless Service Utilization Report, produced conducted during the last three years reported a by the Center on the Family at the University of less than one percent increase in the State's Hawaii and the Hawaii Department of Human total homeless population between 2009 and Services (DHS), provides detailed information on 2010. Between 2010 and 2011, however, the homeless persons served through Shelter and total number of homeless persons statewide Outreach Programs during a 12-month period. increased by more than six percent. The City and County of Honolulu had the most dramatic Table 29. People Served by Outreach Program, increase between 2009 and 2010 (14%), while State and Counties of Hawaii, 2008-2010 Maui and Kaua'i had the most dramatic °%Change %Change increases between 2010 and 2011 (33% and County FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 2008-09 2009-10 23%, respectively). Honolulu 5,194 5,248 5,368 1.0% 2.3% Table 28. Homeless PIT Counts, State and Hawaii 835 961 1,092 15.1% 13.6% Counties of Hawaii, 2009-2011 Maui 1,260 1,251 1,163 -0.7% -7.01/o Kauai 496 392 374 -21.0% -4.6% %chg %chg State 7,785 7,852 7,997 0.9% 1.8% PIT Counts 2009 2010 2011 '09210 '10211 Source: HMIS, 2008-2010. Sheltered 3,268 3,535 3,632 8.2% 2.7% Honolulu 2,445 2,797 2,912 14.4% 4.1% According to HMIS data, the Shelter Program Maui 422 392 394 -7.1% 0.5% served 7,630 individuals (3,758 households) statewide in 201058. The numbers have been Kauai 80 60 97 -25.0% 61.7% stable since 2009 after four years of growth. Hawaii 321 286 229 -10.9% -19.9% Unsheltered 2,514 2,299 2,556 -8.6% 11.2% At the county level, the City and County of Honolulu 1,193 1,374 1,322 15.2% -3.8% Honolulu showed continuous growth since 2008 Maui 581 399 658 -31.3% 64.9% (from 5,023 to 5,660 in 2010). The rate of Kauai 125 213 239 70.4% 12.2% growth was slower last year -- four percent for Hawaii 615 313 337 -49.1% 7.7% 2009-2010 versus nine percent for 2008-2009. The increase was offset by a decrease in other Total 5,782 5,834 6,188 0.9% 6.1% counties. The number of shelter clients served Honolulu 3,638 4,171 4,234 14.7% 1.5% in Maui County continued to decline and dropped Maui 1,003 791 1,052 -21.1% 33.0% from 1,189 to 1,016 over the last three years. Kauai 205 273 336 33.2% 23.1% Also in decline were the numbers for Kauai and Hawaii 936 599 566 -36.0% -5.5% Hawaii , which were on an upward trend from Source: State of Hawaii PIT Counts 2009-2011. 2007, then dropped last year at a rate of 16 percent and 12 percent, respectively. The 2011 PIT Count also showed an eleven percent rise in unsheltered homeless across the The ratio of PIT Count homeless to HMIS-served State. This was following a decline in the homeless is about 0.44. That suggests that on number of unsheltered homeless persons of any given night we might encounter 44 percent nearly nine percent the prior year. The current of all the homeless served during the year. That PIT Count also identified a three percent unrefined churn rate reflects a high degree of increase in sheltered homelessness. 58 Yuan, S.,Trundle, H.,and Fong, G. (2010). Homeless 57 Usually in the last 10 days of January, when the Service Utilization Report Hawaii 2010. Honolulu: weather is typically coldest. University of Hawai i, Center on the Family. Hawaii Housing Policy Study,2011 -DRAFT Page 53 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 turnover in the population served during the families or groups whose members are not year. City and County of Honolulu and Hawaii related by birth, marriage, or adoption). County ratios are .46 and .47, respectively. Maui is close behind at .37. Kauai is only .20, Hidden homeless persons are those who are suggesting very high churn on Kauai. doubled up for economic (rather than social or familial) reasons. Their numbers do not include Table 30. Homeless PIT and HMIS Counts, State double-up households sharing accommodations and Counties of Hawaii, 2010 because they prefer to live as extended families. Homeless HMIS PIT Percent Percent Counts 2010 2010 HMIS PIT In previous HHPS, the method of estimating the Sheltered 7,630 3,535 48.9% 60.6% number of hidden homeless was complicated and based on eight different questions in the Honolulu 5,660 2,797 36.3% 47.9% Housing Demand Survey, including the number Maui 1,016 392 6.5% 6.7% of persons in the household, their relationship to Kauai 331 60 2.1% 1.0% the survey respondent, intention to move with all Hawaii 623 286 4.0% 4.9% household members, and having separate Unsheltered 7,974 2,299 51.1% 39.4% incomes. In 2011, we used a new question that Honolulu 5,350 1,374 34.3% 23.6% asked, "Is anyone living in your home who is not Maui 1,161 399 7.4% 6.8% a member of your immediate family, not paying Kauai 373 213 2.4% 3.7% rent, and does not have the resources to buy or rent their own place?" Those respondents who Hawaii 1,090 313 7.0% 5.4% answered affirmatively were then asked how Total 15,604 5,834 100.0% 100.0% many individuals in the household fit that Honolulu 11,010 4,171 70.6% 71.5% description. Results are shown in Table 31. Maui 2,177 791 14.0% 13.6% Kauai 704 273 4.5% 4.7% Table 31. Hidden Homeless Households, State Hawaii 1,713 599 11.0% 10.3% and Counties of Hawaii 2011 City County County Sources: State of Hawaii PIT Count 2010 and HMIS 2010. County of County of of State of Honolulu of Maui Hawai'i Kauati Hawai'i The number of individuals served by the Total Households 310,662 54,132 67,096 23,201 246,017 Outreach Program statewide and in the City & Hidden Homeless in Household County of Honolulu increased by only about 2 Yes 7% 6% 6% 7% 7% percent between 2009 and 2010. The largest No 92% 91% 91% 92% 92% increase occurred in Hawaii County, where the Not Sure 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% number of individuals served has increased 14 to Total Households 15 percent per year since 2008. In contrast, with Hidden 15,606 3,327 4,266 1,372 455,311 fewer individuals were served by the Outreach Homeless Program in Kauai and Maui in 2010 (5% and 7% Number of Hidden Homeless Members fewer, respectively). one 62% 67% 66% 76% 64% Two 24% 15% 20% 10% 21% Three or More 12% 1 15% 1 15% Hidden Homeless Source: Housing Demand Survey, 2011. Note. Single- person households and respondents to the Maui mail Doubled-up households are households in which survey were not asked this question. more than one family share accommodations. The older and more complicated method of These households include multigenerational estimating hidden homelessness found 6.3 families (two or more families or groups of percent of all households in the State included persons who are related by birth, marriage or some hidden homeless persons. The newer adoption) and unrelated families (two or more method found 6.7 percent included hidden Hawaii Housing Policy Study,2011 -DRAFT Page 54 ©SMS, Inc. November,2011 homeless persons. We believe the new method Households at Risk of Homelessness is a bit more accurate because it is more direct. Households at risk of homelessness are those Across the State, housing problems associated who report that losing three or more paychecks with homelessness are more likely to affect in a row would force them out of their homes people who are younger, non-Asian, relatively without recourse. In 2011, about 24 percent of recent arrivals to our state, and persons with all households in the State of Hawaii reported fewer economic resources. The at-risk group being at risk of homelessness by that definition. included a disproportionately higher number of individuals who had been in Hawaii less than 10 Table 33 shows that the number of households years. at risk has fluctuated considerably over the course of the HHPS carried out since 1992. In The average household size for the hidden part, that may have been due to slight changes homeless group was 4.5 persons statewide. in question wording. The "three paychecks" That is consistent with the definition of hidden definition has always been less than precise and homeless households as having more than one prompted us in 2011 to use another question we family. borrowed from the McCarther Group. The question reads: "What would you do if you or Hidden homeless households are likely to be your family were forced to move out of your living in a unit owned by a member of their home and had no place to live?" Results of its household. This suggests that doubling-up and use in 2011 are shown in Table 33. sharing is more likely to involve an owned housing unit rather than a rented one. Table 33. Responses if Forced to Move Out, State and Counties of Hawaii, 2011 The superficial observation of household COUNTY characteristics will mask the need for housing Oahu I Maui I Hawaii Kauai State among the hidden homeless and may give a Be Homeless 13% 21% 21% 20% 15% false impression of financially stability. We note Seek Help 48% ° for instance, that when asked of the intention to 41/° 47/° 43/° 47/° move in the future, more hidden homeless Other Resources 37% 35% 30% 34% 36% respondents stated a desire to move in the next Don't Know/Refused 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% five years (30% compared to 24%). Further, Source: Housing Demand Survey, 2011. hidden homeless households have a much lower income per household member and are less The question was asked of all homeowners and likely to have incomes that amount to more than renters. Responses were classified in the four $25,000 per person (22% compared to 44%). groups shown in Table 33. The first group is people who stated that, if they lost the income of Table 32. At-Risk and Hidden Homeless the chief wage earner and were forced to leave Households, State of Hawai i, 1992, 1997, 2003, their current residence, they would be homeless. 2006 and 2011 They said they would have to go to a shelter, or 1992 1997 2003 2006 2011 would camp out in a park or some other place Households 375.0 396.0 410.8 435.8 455.3 not intended for human occupation. Hidden 4.7% 6.8% 4.2% 4.3% 6.3% At-Risk 29.8% 18.1% 12.7% 19.6% 24.3% The second group said they were confident that Avg. HH Size 3.09 3.06 2.91 2.94 2.88 they would receive help from family and friends, Hidden 5.14 5.35 5.47 5.19 4.49 government or private agencies. They did not At-Risk 2.89 3.1 2.91 3.07 2.91 see themselves as becoming homeless, but Source: Housing Demand Survey, 1992, 1997, 2003, 2006 perhaps being temporarily in need of shelter or and 2011. financial assistance from someone outside their households. Hawaii Housing Policy Study,2011 -DRAFT Page 55 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 The third group told us there was no way they up the next time they move. They are "less would become homeless or need assistance. established" single parents, members of This group included those who simply said that unmarried couples, have very young children. losing the income of the chief wage earner would They include disproportionately high numbers of not render them incapable of staying in their widowed and divorced persons, and more of housing units. Some said they had other them are found in counties other than Honolulu. resources, including deep savings, investments, People, who would seek help or assistance from or other real estate they could use. The group family, friends, or agencies, on the other hand, also included people who simply denied that are usually low- to middle-market renters and losing their homes was a possibility and refused surprising number of low-end owners. They are to discuss it further. disproportionately more of them in the 80 to 120 percent of median groups. They are younger, The last group, which accounted for about three likely to be single, or young married couples with percent of all households, said they did not know one or two young children. Most of them are not what they would do. They did not deny that crowded or doubled up at present. losing their home would be a possibility, but claimed that did not know where they would go Respondents, either renters or owners, who say or how they would handle the situation. they have the resources to avoid losing their homes are currently paying high prices for The new question format produces an estimated housing and have been in their units for at least 15 percent of all households that would become three years. Homeowners in this group have homeless if they lost the income of the chief relatively low monthly housing costs and include wage earner. That is slightly less than the most of the households with paid-up mortgages. questions we have used in the past. The "three Their incomes are relatively high and most are paychecks from homelessness" finding makes a married but without children in the household. better sound bite, but the new question is probably more accurate in terms of estimating The renters in this group expect to continue the risk that a household will actually end up renting if they are forced out of their current homeless. units. Their rents are mid-range to high and they have been in their current units for shorter It also allows us to look at some of the periods of time. They too, are fairly established characteristics of our respondents. People who and their units are in the higher end of the rental claim they would be homeless, for instance are market. They may move to another unit, paying low rents or have no mortgages, many perhaps at a slightly lower rent, but they are are already doubled up or expect to be doubled fairly certain they would not be homeless. Hawaii Housing Policy Study,2011 -DRAFT Page 56 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 COMMENTS FROM HOUSING DEVELOPERS, 2011 THE STATE OF THE MARKET These problems affect all housing products -- high-end, middle market, and even affordable Housing developers in Hawaii are not optimistic housing. Out-of-state markets are also affected about the short-run future of the housing market. and some developers said in their opinion, out- None that we interviewed expected significant of-state demand is nearly zero at present. improvement in market conditions over the next 12 months and several thought it might be 24 In the non-profit, affordable housing arena, months or longer before any significant turn- developers know there is strong demand for around occurred. There were two main reasons affordable units and especially for affordable offered for that assessment. rentals. They believe that at current capacity, they may be able to serve 10 to 15 percent of Tight Credit. Interest rates are low but that demand. That would normally mean that financing is very difficult to obtain. That affects whatever they build would be used. However, in developers on both sides of the balance sheet. today's market, even affordable housing It is difficult to get the financing they need for developers are concerned that their new units development, and their prospective customers might go unsold or unrented. Development and cannot qualify for home mortgages. Everyone construction costs push their prices against the expects mortgage rates to remain low for at least top of the affordable range and their customers another two years. Individual opinions about are affected by the same market malaise that when credit might loosen drive estimates of exists in the conventional market. They note that when the market will return to normal. jobs are few, incomes low, and doubling up is acceptable in Hawaii. Even low-income families Consumer Confidence: Consumer confidence are hunkered down to wait out the slump. is very low. According to most developers, no one is willing to spend money; no one is willing There are a few promising signs. The market for to invest in real estate. They mentioned at least new, high-end, custom residences was three causes for buyers' lack of confidence. beginning to grow. Limited opportunities to First, job growth has not been fast enough to develop high-density affordable units might arise instill confidence. People who cannot get a job out of the slow market for those who could strike or who are worried about keeping the job they deals with government partners. Oahu have, do not make major expenditures. Second, landowners were beginning to push planning the publicity surrounding the meltdown of the forward to meet opportunities that would arise real estate market at the end of the last decade from rail development. Others noted that it might has made people wary of the housing market. be a good time for public sector to make grants As one developer put it, "They would rather buy or tax credits available for refurbishing our trucks than houses." Third, real estate prices are deteriorating housing stock. still too high59. Some prospective buyers felt that real estate prices have not reached bottom yet Most developers felt those opportunities were and it is better to wait. not the solution to our housing market problems. They are limited, require too much time in development, and tend to be smaller in scale. 59 Not all developers think prices are high. One developer They require public/private partnerships that can told us that it was a sign of a troubled market that Hawaii be difficult and time consuming. In short, they units were "being sold at very low prices." Others define are the kind of enterprises developers engage in a return to a "normal market" as one in which prices are when the market tells them not to build. For the higher. In fact, prices are quite high relative to other US most part, developers expect more waiting. markets, and relative to their price at the peak of the last run-up. Hawari Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 57 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 POLICY CHANGE projects forward. They also feel the need to eliminate some of the duplication of effort that Concerns about the economy and the financial results from different rules at the state and markets were prominent in 2011. That was a county levels. The most obvious way to handle change from 2006 when developer confidence that would be for state and counties to cooperate was high. However, the list of regulatory issues in reconciling the regulations. Most were not that concerned developers changed very little 60 confident that would ever occur. As an alternative, they would rather deal with the Inclusionary housing policy: Opinions were counties alone. fairly consistent across the group. Inclusionary housing policy costs are onerous. Our To accomplish all of this, several people called affordable unit requirements range from thirty to for the counties to take a more active role in fifty percent while California's are about 16 housing policy. That would include pressing for percent. Inclusionary housing rules seem unfair. reconciliation of regulations, actively seeking to Developers must pay the entire cost of new move projects forward, and pressing for more developments. No other entity, public or private, public/private partnerships. regardless of the extent to which they might benefit from development, pays inclusionary Finally, there was a call to make more land fees. Worse yet, Hawaii's inclusionary policies available for residential development. have resulted in very high unit costs to consumers and very few affordable units have All of these issues have been recorded since the been constructed 61. first HHPS in 1992. Hawaii's inclusionary policies and procedures Not all comments were negative. Developers are difficult to work with, we were told, because agreed there were positive aspects to the they originate from several sources, are housing market today, even on the regulatory sometimes complicated and difficult to side. In addition to the plans for transit oriented understand, and differ across governments and development on Oahu, they pointed to Act 55. administrative agencies. Specifically, developers Act 55 established the Public Land Optimization ask for improvement in the dual zone land Plan, which will create public-private investment designations for counties and state, alignment of opportunities to develop all public lands currently state and county procedures, and a review and under the authority of the Department of Land revision of special management area rules. and Natural Resources. Although the Act is They would also ask that requirements for TOD relatively new, most felt it would provide development on Oahu be freed of some of the opportunities to partner with state agencies to more problematic issues, especially parking develop affordable housing. The City and space requirements. "After all, this is a transit County of Honolulu has established the project." Affordable Housing Fund, which shall be used to provide and maintain affordable housing for Call for Cooperation: Some developers, persons earning 50 percent or less of the median especially non-profits, want a more cooperative household income. Many are awaiting the environment for development. They see a need development of administrative rules for for government to take an active hand in moving distributing those funds. 6n Many of the issues brought forth by the housing Affordable housing developers point out that the developers interviewed are not new. Appendix G housing Crisis can have Its good side. Slower provides a summary of previous studies in which similar development in the commercial market sector housing issues and recommendations for resolution can bring construction costs down, make labor 61 were identified. available for self-help housing efforts, and cause Bonham, Carl S., et.al. (2010) Inclusionary zoning: developers to look toward the middle market and Implications for O'ahu's housing market, Honolulu: lower end products. UHERO. P Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 58 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 Other Viewpoints Table 34: Reasons for Not Buying a Home in Next Two Years, 2011 After the last real estate downturn, some housing COUNTY experts began talking about a new American 0'ahu Maui Hawaii Kauai State attitude toward home ownership as well. People Housing prices 74% 60% 60% 69% 7377. are beginning to recognize that not everyone Family finances 19% 30% 31% 23% 22% needs to be a homeowner, and that our market Consumer confidence 4% 8% 4% 4% 4% desperately needs rental units. Real estate is Prefer to rent 3% 3% 5% 5% 4% not a foolproof investment, and home ownership Source: Housing Demand Survey, 2011. is not a panacea for social ills. Private sector developers are not all pleased with that idea, but advocates for the non-owner group see it as a Twenty-two percent said their current financial short-term benefit. situation would not support a home purchase right now. These people told us they could not National experts would agree with the way afford the increased monthly cost, had no down Hawaii's housing leaders assess the housing payment, or did not think they could qualify for a market in 2011. In general, they see the causes loan. of the continuing market slump as "tight underwriting requirements' and "uncertainty Four percent of the respondents mentioned about the direction of home prices,62. Both of worry or uncertainty about the future. Most of those are causing weak demand, which is their comments were about housing prices and slowing housing production even while vacancy some were about job security. A few said they rate are rising and despite some growth in were worried that real estate may not be a good employment and income and very low interest investment right now. rates. Another four percent said they preferred to rent. Nevertheless, unlike our local developers, the They were not going to be in Hawaii for a long Harvard experts would say the consumer time, they did not want to be tied down to any confidence deficit is caused by higher housing one place, or they were not ready for the kind of prices to a greater extent than to uncertainty commitment that home ownership requires. about employment. Information from the survey therefore suggests that high prices might be a larger problem than Information from the Residents consumer confidence in Hawaii. The 2011 Housing Demand Survey respondents seem to agree with national experts. We asked people who were interested in moving to a new home, but not interested in buying, why they would not buy. Fully 70 percent of them told us that home prices were too high, or out of reach (Table 34). 62 The State of the Nation's Housing 2011, Joint Center for Housing Studies for the Harvard University, p1. Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 59 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 PLANNING IMPLICATIONS FOR 2012-2015 RESETTING THE CONTEXT Some observers point to poverty itself as an issue in high-priced housing markets like Hawaii's housing market is the environment for Hawaii's, but Hawaii does not have particularly housing planning. Our market is complicated, it high poverty rates64. Our average household changes frequently, and it is anything but income is relatively high and so is our average normal. Its extremes make housing planning household size. Our average wages are also difficult and its uniqueness makes it hard to relatively high. Hawaii's average wage in 2010 borrow policies developed in other places. was $43,740 compared with the national average at $41,250. Our wages rank 17`h in the Hawaii's housing market has America's highest nation. Overall, it is not a lack of income that home prices and its highest rents. It is also one causes our housing problems. Neither is it the of the most volatile markets in the nation. When gap between the very poor and the very rich. things change, they often change dramatically. Hawaii's Gini score, which measure that gap, is Our housing prices are high because: well below average. ❖ land costs are high ❖ we have the second or third highest HOUSING PLANNING — PUBLIC SECTOR construction costs in the nation ❖ our average household income is quite high HPS has always focused on housing across all ❖ we have great advantages63 and spend the price levels. However, when it comes to most money telling people about them planning, the study has been applied primarily to ❖ we have the most highly regulated housing public sector housing. In part that is because market in the nation by a large margin. HPS has been largely funded by public sector and its reports are published by government Overall, that gives Hawaii the lowest rate of agencies. Even more important, the study has homeownership in the country, some of the always found that housing need is greatest at highest crowding rates, and the fourth highest the lower end of the market. Supply and rate of homelessness among the 50 states and demand analyses and needed units estimates the District of Columbia. show that the biggest gaps between demand and supply are at the bottom of the market. It Our housing policy in the face of those issues seems appropriate then that HPS ends up has led us to make heavy use of multi-family supporting planning efforts for public sector units and leasehold residential properties. The housing. Census tells us we have unusually high rates of both of those in our housing stock. Our housing stock is not, however, of poor quality. The Past Planning Efforts: Spending housing stock is getting older, but by comparison to the rest of the country the average unit age is One way of looking at past housing planning still low and the percentage of non-standard or efforts in Hawaii is to look at how we spend our mobile housing units is extremely low. HPS has housing dollars. In the public sector, funding been reporting for years that the most comes largely from two sources: federal and troublesome feature of Hawaii's housing stock is state government. It is fair to say that funding is a lack of units suited to the needs of low-income households. From their point of view, the quality of our housing stock may be too high. sa ACS 2009 gave Hawaii 43r4 highest poverty rate among the states and District of Columbia and our income to 63 Weather, scenery, friendly people, cultural richness, poverty ratio (a measure of the depth or seriousness of slow-paced living, etc. poverty)was 42 n Hawari Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 60 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 one of the main parameters of housing planning, Total HUD expenditures in Hawaii since 2000 at least for public sector. amounted to a reported $ 1.46 billion or about $133 million per year. The allocations were fairly Typical of expenditures data in any industry, high in 2000 and 2001, and then leveled off at accounting systems do not always preserve the about $70 million a year during the middle of the information of greatest interest to planners. decade. With added funds from the American They are built to provide working information for Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 business accountability and not necessarily to (ARRA), HUD spending rose to over $200 million report detailed expenditures for planning goals a year in 2008 and 2009 and settled back to and objectives. These figures are not, however, $161.3 million in 2010. without their value to a planning study. Table 35 shows the distribution of HUD funds Federal Allocations allocated to Hawaii in the federal fiscal years from FY2008 through FY 2010. Details on Federal expenditures in Hawaii have become more readily available in recent years. Table 35: Federal Housing Expenditures in Hawaii, 2010 Federal Fiscal Year 2008 2009 Total Federal Allocations $ 202,678,737 $269,447,727 $ 161,251,851 Contracts $ 786,903 $ 205,189 $ 15,948,826 Assistance $ 201,891,834 $269,242,538 $ 145,303,025 Grants $ 74,787,452 $147,956,567 $ 78,254,581 Direct Pay $ 121,255,893 $121,285,971 $ 67,048,444 Other $ 5,848,489 $ $ - Recipient Government $ 191,569,018 $244,840,120 $ 131,131,195 for profit $ 1,907,897 $ 11,284,688 non-profit $ 8,122,781 $ 8,950,218 $ 2,420,485 Individuals $ 12,028,498 universities $ 2,200,035 Other $ - $ 1,515,805 $ 466,657 Source: USASpending.gov, Prime Award Spending Data, FY 2008-2010. The distribution of funds for 2010 is similar to the and county housing agencies). A total of $78.2 pattern before 2008 when the stimulus spending million was received in the form of grants, which began. About ten percent of total funding was in allow the housing agencies some discretion in the form of direct contracts for services received deciding how those funds are expended. The by HUD in Hawaii. Of the remaining 90 percent, rest was in direct payments to individuals. about 45 percent is in direct payments to Funds that were received by agencies other than individuals in need of services. the five housing agencies were used to pay for direct services to individuals as opposed to Of the $145.3 million assistance payments in construction, rehabilitation, or maintenance of 2010, about 90 percent or $131.1 was received housing units. Providing new units is by government agencies (nearly all of it by State government business. Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 61 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 State Allocations $25 million per year. The allocation pattern has been uneven, reflecting economic changes in Nationally, most of the money spent by local State revenues during the decade. The governments on housing comes from federal prosperity of the first two years of the decade funds. States generally do not contribute produced large allocations to housing. The post substantial funding to housing development. In 9/11 economy resulted in cutbacks that forced Hawaii, State allocations to housing have been transfer of housing funds to other uses. The fairly substantial over the last decade (Table housing boom years brought significant 36). legislative allocations to housing and homelessness, and the economic downturn of Over the last 11 years, the total State allocation 2009 brought the return of lower allocations. to housing amounted to about $271.5 million or Table 36: Legislative Funding for Homeless and Affordable Housing, 2000 to 2010 Funding Bond Revenue Tax Expenditures Withdrawals Net Allocation 2000 $2,080,000 -$1,296,041 $783,959 2001 $2,100,000 $44,920,000 $47,020,000 2002 $150,000 $2,600,000 -$25,747,458 -$22,997,458 2003 $150,000 -$23,097,181 -$22,947,181 2004 $325,000 $2,560,000 -$10,000,000 -$7,115,000 2005 $37,517,306 $10,500,000 $48,017,306 2006 $42,656,863 $6,950,000 $49,606,863 2007 $7,200,000 $50,850,000 $7,761,604 $65,811,604 2008 $68,864,000 $68,864,000 2009 $62,413,000 -$2,038,022 -$600,000 $59,774,978 2010 -$13,500,000 -$1,772,279 -$15,272,279 Total $90,099,169 $238,237,000 $2,655,262 -$59,444,639 $271,546,792 Source: Hawaii State Legislature, Regular Session Package: Housing and Homeless Legislative Package, 2011. Legislative allocations were of two types. First, Formal housing planning is summarized in the general obligation bonds were issued to fund Consolidated Plans submitted to HUD by specific projects. They were usually associated Hawaii's five housing coordinating agencies65 with public housing and homeless shelters. In It might be said that the State's public sector addition, special funds and tax expenditures housing policy is summed up in those were allocated to revolving loan funds and documents. Figure 13 presents a brief overview development funds. These were also the of the five Consolidated Plans published in 2010. targets of withdrawals allocations in later years. Planning Data As in all States, spending on housing production and assistance is distributed according to formal 65 The full set of HUD documents designed to develop and plans. This section looks at State and County monitor housing planning includes the Consolidated strategies to approach housing Issues given Plan, annual reports to update the ConPlan, the CAPER each of their resources and constraints. to evaluate progress toward objectives. Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 62 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 Figure 13: Summary of 2010 Public Housing Policy Goals Support BUILD ASSIST EDUCATE Home Low interest loans and closing 1200-meownership Ownership costs to support home ownership. unseling for about 3 Low Fund or finance repair 0 Income or rehab approx. 90 = Rentals units. Special Build/rehab structure for Emergency payments for Needs special needs approx. HIV/AIDS persons Housina 25 units. Home 60 homes <80%AMI Down payment&closing costs for Homeownership Ownership Support 10 self-help 5 homes counseling, 20 Rehab 50 homes workshops- Low Add 100 vouchers for low-income Income Rent subsidies for 25 x Rentals Special ES operations for 20 homeless Needs 100 elderly ES for 300 homeless Housing ES operations for 176 homeless Home Dev 17 Self-Help units Down payment and closing costs Ownership 33 affordable homes for 105 low-mod persons Low 32 long-term rentals '3 Income 92 affordable rentals m Rehab affordable rental 2 Rentals units 44 rental units Special ES operations for 135 homeless Needs 10 transition homeless Mortgage and utilities assistance Info to assist 28 persons Housing facilities for SA for 4 HH with HIV/AIDS with HIV/AIDS g 4 support facilities Home 40 self-help units Low cost financing for 10 first time Homebuyer education Ownership 5 home rehabs. homebuyers for 125 Low Su Income 50 affordable rentals Y Rentals Special Acquire or rehab 50 Needs units for homeless ES operations for 150 homeless ES operations for 200 homeless Housing transition Home 25 affordable homes Support homebuyer loan Homeownership Ownership Rehab 33 affordable programs counseling, 20 40 self-help units workshops- Low 32 affordable rentals Rental assistance for 125 Income 202 affordable rentals Rentals Special 60 affordable rentals Rent/deposit assistance for HIV Needs 144 affordable rentals Rental assistance for HIV Housing 18 transitional units Operations for 385 homeless Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 63 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 The summary shown in Figure 14 is a gross the achievement of planning objectives oversimplification of the work planned by summarized in Figure 13. Hawaii's five major housing agencies for the next five years. It is intended to provide a high-level overview of what is scheduled as an AFFORDABLE HOUSING CONSTRUCTION indication of our housing planning. From 2007 through 2010, and as a result of The Consolidated Plan describes the public sector housing planning, more than strategies that housing agencies in Hawaii 10,000 affordable housing units67 were apply to manage the housing issues that affect constructed in the State of Hawai i66. A total the low end of the housing market66. Very of 10,058 units were completed under the broadly considered, those strategies can be aegis of the five Housing Offices of the State summed up as three strategies applied to and using federal and state funds. In addition, three targets. at least 4,793 affordable housing units were constructed under unilateral agreement with The three strategies are construction, buyer private housing developers. and renter assistance, and consumer education. Construction is aimed at producing Public sector housing construction was notably additional housing units and includes higher in the last four years than in the earlier construction financing, planning and design part of the last decade. Figure 14 shows the work, building units, managing them, funding affordable housing units developed each year and supporting rehabilitation, and refurbishing during the last decade. existing units. Assistance includes transfer payments and other services intended to Figure 14: Affordable Housing Units increase or sustain home ownership or rental Constructed, 2000-2010 stability among low-income households. 2,500 Education programs are directed at current or ■Kauai ■Maui intended owners or renters. 2,000 ■Hawaii ■Honolulu The three target groups are homeowners or 1,500 prospective homeowners, low-income renters, and special needs groups. All three of these 1,000 groups and their housing needs have been covered in previous sections of this report. 500 The allocation of effort shown in Figure 14 0 _"A o . N m a M io m o reflects the goals and objectives of the five 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 housing agencies for the people they serve. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N All five agencies have plans for all three groups and employ all three strategies. The The pattern of construction over time is very education strategy is applied only to similar to that for housing production in general homeownership except for a Maui County program to assist homeless persons with 67 The term "affordable" as used here means that the units HIV/AIDS. were developed as programs under federal program guidelines and made use of federal and/or state funds. They were developed as affordable units according to definitions State and county ConPlans describe how that changed throughout the decade. The numbers that appear in this section are conservative Federal and State funds are to be allocated to estimates of actual affordable housing production. The current list of projects and units produced is incomplete at the publication of this report. Some units produced by the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands are missing and there Note that ConPlans include other housing plan may be a small number of units from Hawaii County missing. elements such as eliminating impediments to Fair The units developed under unilateral agreements with Housing. Her we deal only with the direct housing developers are taken only from the County of Honolulu at issues. this time. Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 64 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 and for housing sales. Production was low in Table 37 shows some additional detail for the first part of the decade, grew rapidly to a affordable housing units developed by the peak in 2008, then rose sharply again in 2010. public sector in the last four years. Consistent The peak is about a year later than the market with housing plans across the state, affordable peak in response to stimulus funding. units constructed under federal program guidelines and using public section funding, By definition, market mechanisms do not were concentrated on multi-family and rental directly cause an increase in the supply of units. The single exception was Maui County, units priced below market levels. They can, where the majority of affordable units however, signal distress in the housing constructed were single-family units intended marketplace that is translated into demand for for sale. affordable units from public sector housing providers. It is precisely this function that is filled by housing planning in the public sector. Table 37. Types of Units Constructed, 2007-2010 Tenure Unit Type Total For Sale For Rent Single-family Multi-family Units Completed Num. Pct. Num. Pct. Num. Pct. I Num. Pct. State of Hawai'i 10,058 4,190 41.7% 5,868 58.3% 3,039 30.2% 7,019 69.8% Honolulu 5,491 1,605 292% 3,886 70.8% 873 15.9% 4,618 84.1% Hawaii 1,138 358 31.5% 780 68.5% 336 29.5% 802 70.5% Maui 2,637 1,964 74.5% 673 25.5% 1,653 62.7% 984 37.3% Kauai 792 263 332% 529 66.8% 177 22.3% 615 77.7% RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE HOUSING PLANNING STUDIES Throughout this report, we have noted that the environment for housing studies has changed substantially since the HPS series began. In addition, the pace at which those changes are occurring is quickening. The issues involved are greater in number and more complicated. The call for greater planning relevance is louder and more urgent. The data needed to evaluate the issues and their solutions is more abundant and more accurate, but it is also more difficult to bring those data together in a single model for assessing housing issues. It may be useful to draw up a set of recommendations for improving the study. Figure 16 presents a short list of those recommendations. Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 65 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 Figure 15: Recommendations for Future Housing Planning Studies A. Monitoring Housing Stock ACS data on housing and population will be the standard for the nation on the next decade. We will have to adopt these data as the foundation for housing studies in Hawaii. The inventory component of the study will likely become less important in the future, and the need to gather ancillary data on leasehold and condominium units as well as military housing will become a separate task. B. Monitoring Rents ACS data will also be more important for measuring rental contracts and rental prices. We cannot be certain at this point what will happen to the current rent study component of HHPS. It is likely that a combination of ACS and Hawaii rental data will be required for HHPS in the future. C. Monitoring Housing Planning and Policy The need to make HHPS more directly planning related, should it continue, will require a more comprehensive and continuous effort to monitor housing planning objectives, activities, and outcomes. D. Monitoring Special Needs Group Housing Conditions The most challenging of the new additions to HHPS in 2011 was the requirement to produce hard data in support of planning for housing for special needs groups. The ad hoc effort of HHPS 2011, though inadequate to the task, points out the need to develop theory and systems, definitions and communications for the research, for the housing agencies, and for the agencies that serve special needs groups. Hawaii Housing Planning Study, 2011 Page 66 ©SMS, Inc. November, 2011 APPENDIX: SUPPORT MATERIALS Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 67 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 APPENDIX A: HOUSING TRENDS The tables presented in Appendix A, referred to in prior iterations of the HHPS as the "A Tables" or "Trend Tables", provide detailed demographic and housing related data for the State of Hawaii and its counties. This data is taken from the Housing Demand Survey from each year. The fundamental components of the Housing Demand Survey were designed to ensure compatibility with previous versions. These tables allow for the evaluation of trends in the Hawaii housing market across the past 20 years. Table A-1. Characteristics of Housing Units, 1992, 1997, 2003, 2006, and 2011 Tenancy Unit Size (Bedrooms) Studio or 1 2 3 4+ County Year Own Rent Bedroom Bedrooms Bedrooms Bedrooms 1992 48% 52% 20% 32% 30% 19% 1997 54% 46% 16% 27% 36% 21% Honolulu 2003 61% 39% 15% 25% 35% 25% 2006 59% 41% 18% 25% 37% 20% 2011 56% 44% 15% 21% 37% 26% 1992 61% 39% 14% 26% 46% 15% 1997 65% 35% 12% 23% 46% 19% Maui 2003 61% 40% 13% 28% 42% 17% 2006 60% 40% 15% 27% 43% 17% 2011 54% 46% 17% 26% 37% 20% 1992 68% 32% 7% 25% 53% 14% 1997 72% 28% 8% 21% 54% 17% Hawaii 2003 70% 30% 12% 19% 50% 19% 2006 69% 31% 11% 22% 49% 18% 2011 67% 33% 13% 21% 47% 19% 1992 60% 40% 12% 19% 53% 15% 1997 67% 33% 8% 19% 57% 15% Kauai 2003 66% 34% 11% 20% 53% 17% 2006 66% 34% 10% 21% 51% 18% 2011 59% 41% 12% 19% 51% 18% 1992 52% 48% 17% 30% 35% 18% 1997 58% 42% 14% 25% 40% 20% State 2003 62% 38% 14% 24% 39% 23% 2006 61% 39% 17% 24% 39% 20% 2011 1 57% 43% 1 15% 22% 39% 24% Source. Housing Demand Survey, 1992, 1997, 2003, 2006, and 2011 Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 68 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 Table A-2. Household Income Data, 1992, 1997, 2003, 2006, and 2011 Household Income Less $15,000 1$25,000 1$50,0001 $75,000 Total than to to County Year Households $ 00 $24,999 $49,999 $74to to $100,000 Median HH ,999 $99,999 or more Income 1992 247,349 N/A 24% 29% 12% 6% 7% $36,974 1997 272,234 9% 9% 28% 15% 9% 6% $42,234 Honolulu 2003 292,003 8% 10% 36% 18% 11% 17% $47,917 2006 303,149 13% 7% 26% 22% 12% $58,385 2011 310,882 12% 7% 25% 22% 9% 25% $59,076 1992 34,266 N/A 20% 36% 11% 2% 3% $35,843 1997 39,252 10% 8% 33% 15% 7% 6% $38,908 Maui 2003 43,687 9% 13% 34% 19% 14% 11% $44,297 2006 49,484 11% 8% 29% 20% 15% 17% $49,795 2011 54,132 12% 10% 27% 19% 11% 21% $58,424 1992 39,789 N/A 24% 39% 11% 3% 4% $34,063 1997 46,271 14% 14% 30% 12% 4% 4% $31,831 Hawaii 2003 54,644 14% 12% 39% 17% 9% 9% $36,905 2006 61,213 13% 10% 29% 22% 10% 16% $51,920 2011 67,096 18% 13% 25% 17% 10% 17% $44,696 1992 16,981 N/A 20% 36% 10% 5% 3% $36,966 1997 18,817 11% 13% 30% 15% 5% 3% $34,891 Kauai 2003 20,460 13% 12% 37% 18% 9% 12% $42,205 2006 21,971 10% 10% 27% 23% 11% 19% $53,116 2011 23,201 13% 11% 25% 19% 9% 19% $49,730 1992 338,385 N/A 24% 31% 12% 5% 6% $36,289 1997 376,574 10% 10% 29% 15% 8% 6% $39,883 State 2003 410,794 10% 10% 36% 19% 10% 15% $46,086 2006 435,818 13% 7% 27% 21% 12% 20% $58,393 2011 455,311 13% 8% 26% 21% 10% 23% $58,700 Source: Housing Demand Survey, 1992, 1997, 2003,2006, and 2011 Note. The number of total households for the Housing Demand survey represents an SNS estimate developed using ACS 2009 data prior to the release of Census 2010. The total number of households for each county differs by less than one percent from Census 2010 figures presented in Table 4. Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 69 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 Table A-3. Households at HUD Income Guidelines by County, 1992, 1997, 2003, 2006, and 2011 HUD Household Income Guidelines Total 30% or Over 30% Over 50% Over 80% Over 120% Over County Year Households less to 50% to 80% to 120% to 140% 140% 1992 247,349 N/Aa 20% 19% 23% 10% 27% 1997 272,234 8% 15% 21% 30% 7% 20% Honolulu 2003 292,003 5% 19% 22% 22% 7% 25% 2006 303,149 14% 10% 20% 22% 9% 24% 2011 310,882 19% 16% 25% 12% 7% 21% 1992 34,266 N/Aa 20% 19% 24% 9% 28% 1997 39,252 7% 11% 27% 24% 10% 21% Maui 2003 43,687 10% 17% 28% 18% 7% 21% 2006 49,484 13% 11% 19% 21% 7% 28% 2011 54,132 20% 19% 22% 9% 5% 25% 1992 39,789 N/Aa 20% 18% 24% 10% 29% 1997 46,271 3% 19% 21% 23% 10% 24% Havvai'i 2003 54,644 5% 14% 28% 22% 6% 25% 2006 61,213 14% 11% 18% 20% 5% 31% 2011 67,096 21% 16% 19% 13% 6% 24% 1992 16,981 N/Aa 21% 18% 21% 9% 30% 1997 18,817 9% 18% 27% 25% 9% 12% Kauai 2003 20,460 6% 23% 27% 20% 7% 18% 2006 21,971 12% 11% 18% 21% 10% 28% 2011 23,201 19% 18% 23% 13% 6% 22% 1992 338,385 N/Aa 20% 19% 22% 11% 28% 1997 376,574 7% 15% 22% 28% 7% 20% State 2003 410,794 9% 15% 20% 22% 8% 24% 2006 435,818 14% 11% 20% 22% 8% 26% 2011 455,311 20% 17% 24% 12% 7% 22% Source: Housing Demand Survey, 1992, 1997, 2003,2006, and 2011 a In 1992, the lowest income category in the Housing Demand Survey was "less than $25,000. It was split into two categories thereafter. Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 70 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 Table A-4a. Housing Unit Condition, Owned Units, 1992, 1997, 2003, 2006, and 2011 Owner Occupied Total xce en a is ac ory air Hoor County Yel r Households condition condition condition condition 1992 247,349 47% 43% 9% 2% 1997 272,234 31% 47% 18% 4% Honolulu 2003 292,003 42% 46% 11% 1% 2006 303,149 39% 46% 12% 3% 2011 310,882 40% 45% 12% 49/c 1992 34,266 52% 38% 10% 1% 1997 39,252 35% 48% 15% 3% Maui 2003 43,687 45% 42% 10% 3% 2006 49,484 44% 43% 11% 2% 2011 54,132 49% 37% 11% 2% 1992 39,789 52% 41% 6% 1% 1997 46,271 42% 42% 13% 4% Hawaii 2003 54,644 46% 44% 9% 2% 2006 61,213 44% 44% 11% 1% 2011 67,096 48% 38% 11% 3% 1992 16,981 49% 42% 7% 2% 1997 18,817 42% 42% 13% 3% Kauai 2003 20,460 48% 42% 9% 2% 2006 21,971 44% 43% 11% 2% 2011 23,201 44% 39% 15% 2% 1992 338,385 49% 42% 8% 2% 1997 376,574 34% 46% 17% 4% State 2003 410,794 43% 45% 10% 2% 2006 435,818 41% 45% 12% 3% 2011 455,311 43% 42% 12% 3% Source: Housing Demand Survey, 1992, 1997, 2003,2006, and 2011 Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 71 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 Table A-4b. Housing Unit Condition, Rented Units, 1992, 1997, 2003, 2006, and 2011 Renter Occupied Total Excellent Satistactory air Hoor County Year Households condition condition condition condition 1992 247,349 23% 52% 20% 6% 1997 272,234 21% 46% 27% 6% Honolulu 2003 292,003 22% 52% 22% 4% 2006 303,149 24% 42% 25% 10% 2011 310,882 31% 46% 19% 5% 1992 34,266 27% 43% 24% 6% 1997 39,252 25% 48% 22% 5% Maui 2003 43,687 28% 47% 20% 6% 2006 49,484 31% 40% 22% 7% 2011 54,132 35% 43% 16% 6% 1992 39,789 29% 46% 16% 9% 1997 46,271 26% 45% 20% 10% Hawaii 2003 54,644 27% 46% 23% 5% 2006 61,213 22% 48% 20% 10% 2011 67,096 37% 42% 15% 7% 1992 16,981 25% 55% 15% 5% 1997 18,817 27% 44% 22% 7% Kauai 2003 20,460 30% 47% 18% 5% 2006 21,971 24% 46% 25% 6% 2011 23,201 26% 42% 27% 5% 1992 338,385 24% 51% 20% 6% 1997 376,574 22% 46% 26% 6% State 2003 410,794 24% 51% 21% 4% 2006 435,818 24% 43% 24% 9% 2011 455,311 32% 45% 19% 5% Source: Housing Demand Survey, 1992, 1997, 2003,2006, and 2011 Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 72 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 Table A-5: Average Monthly Housing Cost, 1992, 1997, 2003, 2006, and 2011 Average Monthly Mortgage Average Monthly Payment Rent Total Single- Multi- 2-bedroom County Y Beholds Total family family Total apartment 1992 247,349 $821 $915 $832 $864 1997 272,234 $1,430 $1,369 $1,335 $928 $923 Honolulu 2003 292,003 $1,546 $1,650 $1,239 $1,014 $1,072 2006 303,149 $1,142 $1,173 $1,029 $1,300 $1,393 2011 310,882 $1,415 $1,393 $1,510 $1,502 $1,487 1992 34,266 $776 $831 $719 $730 1997 39,252 $1,210 $1,664 $789 $850 $1,138 Maui 2003 43,687 $1,310 $1,346 $1,104 $979 $1,072 2006 49,484 $1,461 $1,451 $1,458 $1,256 $1,253 2011 54,132 $1,461 $1,468 $1,411 $1,280 $1,303 1992 39,789 $651 $691 $579 $556 1997 46,271 $954 $1,069 $840 $697 $644 Hawaii 2003 54,644 $1,072 $1,078 $919 $859 $843 2006 61,213 $1,057 $1,039 $1,407 $1,146 $1,152 2011 67,096 $1,106 $1,102 $1,389 $1,121 $986 1992 16,981 $726 $773 $612 $807 1997 18,817 $1,151 $1,290 $881 $830 $860 Kauai 2003 20,460 $1,284 $1,306 $1,014 $983 $885 2006 21,971 $1,165 $1,178 $974 $1,230 $1,271 2011 23,201 $1,273 $1,254 $983 $1,311 $1,292 1992 338,385 $800 $863 $813 $793 1997 376,574 $1,319 $1,330 $1,286 $897 State 2003 410,794 $1,433 $1,488 $1,213 $992 $1,037 2006 435,818 $1,167 $1,183 $1,081 $1,274 $1,346 2011 455,311 $1,355 $1,332 $1,495 $1,421 $1,398 Source: Housing Demand Survey, 1992, 1997, 2003,2006, and 2011 Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 73 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 Table A-6: Mortgage Payments by Years in Unit, 1992, 1997, 2003, 2006, and 2011 Average Monthly Mortgage by Years in Unit Total County Year Households Less than 1 year 1 to 5 years 6 to 10 years More than 10 years 1992 247,349 $886 $879 $656 $564 1997 272,234 $1,431 $1,668 $1,697 $1,241 Honolulu 2003 292,003 $1,616 $1,729 $1,689 $1,414 2006 303,149 $2,865 $1,865 $1,445 $824 2011 310,882 $2,488 $2,255 $2,007 $1,088 1992 34,266 $824 $781 $755 $609 1997 39,252 $1,497 $1,519 $1,339 $986 Maui 2003 43,687 $1,972 $1,448 $1,436 $1,091 2006 49,484 $2,245 $2,037 $1,565 $1,072 2011 54,132 $1,671 $1,962 $1,720 $1,202 1992 39,789 $752 $707 $455 $314 1997 46,271 $1,030 $1,168 $1,122 $730 Hawaii 2003 54,644 $1,455 $1,143 $1,174 $953 2006 61,213 $1,700 $1,662 $987 $725 2011 67,096 $1,591 $1,531 $1,403 $792 1992 16,981 $888 $722 $559 $552 1997 18,817 $1,448 $1,304 $1,167 $968 Kauai 2003 20,460 $1,673 $1,490 $1,373 $1,089 2006 21,971 $2,666 $1,634 $1,442 $824 2011 23,201 $2,285 $2,039 $1,587 $1,026 1992 338,385 $867 $853 $634 $553 1997 376,574 $1,387 $1,548 $1,501 $1,135 State 2003 410,794 $1,636 $1,559 $1,577 $1,299 2006 435,818 $2,468 $1,837 $1,378 $835 2011 455,311 $2,157 $2,013 $1,805 $1,049 Source: Housing Demand Survey, 1992, 1997, 2003,2006, and 2011 Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 74 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 Table A-7. Household Composition, 1992, 1997, 2003, 2006, and 2011 Household Type Total Single Married, Parent(s) Unrelated County Year Households member no children & children roommates Other Undetermined 1992 247,349 11.9% 24.4% 26.3% 1.7% 32.0% 3.7% 1997 272,234 14.1% 25.6% 27.3% 4.2% 27.2% 1.6% Honolulu 2003 292,003 22.0% 28.9% 21.2% 3.2% 22.9% 1.8% 2006 303,149 24.1% 21.8% 20.9% 3.3% 29.3% 0.5% 2011 310,882 22.2% 19.6% 14.1% 5.0% 37.6% 1.4% 1992 34,266 12.6% 24.4% 32.9% 1.6% 25.9% 2.3% 1 997 39,252 14.1% 25.0% 27.9% 5.4% 24.8% 2.7% Maui 2003 43,687 21.9% 29.6% 25.4% 3.2% 17.6% 2.3% 2006 49,484 21.5% 24.8% 24.0% 3.6% 25.8% 0.3% 2011 54,132 24.7% 22.2% 12.8% 7.0% 30.7% 2.6% 1992 39,789 9.6% 27.2% 32.3% 0.6% 26.0% 4.3% 1997 46,271 14.8% 27.0% 28.4% 3.5% 24.3% 2.1% Hawaii 2003 54,644 22.3% 30.6% 24.4% 3.2% 18.1% 1.4% 2006 61,213 19.5% 25.6% 22.6% 2.6% 28.7% 1.0% 2011 67,096 24.6% 25.0% 13.5% 6.5% 29.0% 1.4% 1992 16,981 12.7% 26.1% 31.0% 0.5% 26.3% 3.5% 1997 18,817 13.2% 27.1% 30.0% 1.7% 25.4% 2.5% Kauai 2003 20,460 20.9% 26.9% 26.8% 3.2% 20.5% 1.7% 2006 21,971 19.8% 25.0% 23.3% 3.3% 28.2% 0.4% 2011 23,201 22.5% 23.6% 14.8% 4.4% 32.5% 2.2% 1992 338,385 11.7% 24.9% 27.9% 1.5% 30.3% 3.6% 1997 376,574 14.2% 25.8% 27.6% 4.1% 26.5% 1.9% State 2003 410,794 22.0% 29.1% 22.3% 3.2% 21.6% 1.8% 2006 435,818 22.9% 22.8% 21.6% 3.2% 28.8% 0.6% 2011 455,311 22.9% 21.0% 13.9% 5.5% 35.2% 1.6% Source: Housing Demand Survey, 1992, 1997, 2003,2006, and 2011. Note. Single member households have one adult member only. "Married, no children" households consist of two married adults with no children under the age of 18. "Parent(s)with children" households contain one or two married adults and one or more children. It is not certain that the children are the own children of the parent or parents. "Unrelated roommates" households contain two or more adults, none related to the others by birth or marriage, and no children. "Other" households include all other types of households that could be classified. This category includes many complex households such as those with many adults and many children, related and unrelated individuals, and more than two generations in a single household. "Undetermined" households were those for which one or more pieces of information required to classify the household type was missing. Household classification variables included household size, age of respondent and ages of other members of the household, marital status of respondent, and questions about the relationships of household members. Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 75 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 Table A-8. Household Crowding, 1992, 1997, 2003, 2006, and 2011 Crowding Indicators Total Year Households Doubled Up° Both` 1992 247,349 23.2% 32.0% 1997 272,234 10.6% 27.2% Honolulu 2003 292,003 10.0% 10.0% 17.6% 2006 303,149 8.0% 9.7% 15.2% 2011 310,882 13.3% 13.8% 22.9% 1992 34,266 26.8% 25.9% 1997 39,252 10.4% 24.8% Maui 2003 43,687 11.0% 8.7% 17.3% 2006 49,484 8.0% 9.6% 15.3% 2011 54,132 11.4% 12.6% 19.4% 1992 39,789 18.7% 26.0% 1997 46,271 7.9% 24.3% Hawaii 2003 54,644 7.0% 9.3% 14.4% 2006 61,213 7.0% 11.2% 15.9% 2011 67,096 8.6% 10.7% 17.2% 1992 16,981 17.4% 26.3% 1997 18,817 9.1% 25.4% Kauai 2003 20,460 6.0% 12.5% 16.1% 2006 21,971 7.1% 11.9% 15.5% 2011 23,201 10.0% 11.0% 16.9% 1992 338,385 22.2% 30.3% 1997 376,574 10.2% 26.5% State 2003 410,794 9.6% 10.0% 17.1% 2006 435,818 8.2% 10.0% 15.3% 2011 1 455,311 1 12.1% 1 13.2% 1 21.4% Source: Housing Demand Survey, 1992, 1997, 2003, 2006, 2011. a Based on more than 1.01 persons per room. u More than one family group in a single housing unit(See Glossary). c Percent of households crowded, doubled up, or both. Before 2003, HHPS measured crowding and "crowded or doubled up". After 2003, HHPS measured crowding and doubled up and combined the two. Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 76 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 Table A-9. Shelter-to-Income Ratios, 1992, 1997, 2003, 2006, and 2011 Monthly Shelter Payment as a Percent of Monthly Household Income Total Under 30 30 to 40 Over 40 Not enough County y Households percent percent percent information 1992 247,349 55.7% 14.1% 20.2% 10.0% 1997 272,234 55.1% 18.9% 18.4% 7.5% Honolulu 2003 292,003 55.7% 18.5% 18.0% 7.8% 2006 303,149 54.8% 10.9% 22.0% 12.0% 2011 310,882 54.1% 8.2% 28.0% 9.7% 1992 34,266 59.3% 18.1% 15.8% 6.7% 1997 39,252 47.9% 16.0% 19.8% 16.4% Maui 2003 43,687 52.2% 18.3% 15.7% 15.9% 2006 49,484 49.1% 14.3% 27.1% 9.4% 2011 54,132 40.8% 18.0% 30.2% 11.0% 1992 39,789 70.2% 12.4% 11.5% 5.9% 1997 46,271 51.8% 18.1% 20.4% 9.7% Hawaii 2003 54,644 52.5% 19.1% 15.9% 12.4% 2006 61,213 54.9% 11.1% 22.0% 12.0% 2011 67,096 49.1% 12.5% 25.1% 13.3% 1992 16,981 60.3% 17.7% 13.7% 8.1% 1997 18,817 44.9% 18.7% 24.7% 11.7% Kauai 2003 20,460 51.8% 16.8% 18.0% 13.3% 2006 21,971 57.6% 10.8% 21.6% 10.0% 2011 23,201 46.0% 17.3% 24.2% 12.6% 1992 338,385 58.0% 14.5% 18.4% 9.1% 1997 376,574 53.5% 18.5% 19.1% 8.9% State 2003 410,794 54.7% 18.5% 17.5% 9.5% 2006 435,818 54.2% 11.3% 22.7% 11.8% 2011 455,311 51.4% 10.4% 27.7% 10.5% Source: Housing Demand Survey, 1992, 1997, 2003,2006, and 2011 Note. "Not enough information" households include those with no shelter payment and those that did not provide sufficient information to calculate a shelter-to-income ratio. Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 77 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 Table A-10. Shelter-to-Income Ratios by Years in Unit, 1992, 1997, 2003, 2006, and 2011 Percent with shelter-to-income ratio of 30%or more by Years in Unit by Tenancy Total Less than 1 to 5 6 to 10 More than Rented or Owner County Year Households 1 year years years 10 years no cash occupied 1 992 247,349 61.1% 43.7% 34.9% 12.7% 44.6% 23.0% 1997 272,234 40.8% 43.2% 46.9% 35.1% 41.4% 39.2% Honolulu 2003 292,003 42.5% 49.6% 37.6% 24.9% 48.9% 28.0% 2006 303,149 53.0% 43.1% 36.9% 22.1% 47.2% 22.7% 2011 310,882 65.8% 55.7% 44.9% 25.9% 61.9% 24.5% 1992 34,266 47.3% 49.8% 30.6% 17.0% 43.8% 27.6% 1997 39,252 41.4% 50.0% 47.3% 33.7% 38.6% 46.1% Maui 2003 43,687 52.2% 38.3% 26.5% 26.0% 40.5% 30.0% 2006 49,484 66.3% 46.8% 44.8% 26.3% 54.6% 32.6% 2011 54,132 60.2% 51.5% 40.6% 27.6% 52.7% 31.1% 1992 39,789 51.5% 35.8% 18.5% 6.7% 37.8% 17.2% 1997 46,271 49.6% 52.5% 42.6% 30.8% 52.0% 37.0% Hawaii 2003 54,644 42.4% 41.7% 31.2% 26.8% 49.0% 27.8% 2006 61,213 60.8% 43.7% 27.5% 20.3% 48.3% 27.1% 2011 67,096 66.4% 48.7% 38.4% 23.0% 57.3% 28.1% 1992 16,981 46.3% 31.1% 18.5% 15.6% 36.9% 28.1% 1997 18,817 61.2% 56.5% 41.4% 39.6% 53.4% 46.1% Kauai 2003 20,460 43.2% 43.2% 31.4% 26.0% 44.4% 29.7% 2006 21,971 51.6% 45.2% 37.1% 18.8% 47.7% 24.3% 2011 23,201 65.8% 53.9% 42.9% 29.3% 56.0% 31.7% 1 992 338,385 57.8% 43.3% 31.1% 12.6% 43.7% 23.0% 1997 376,574 42.2% 45.6% 46.0% 34.7% 40.1% 40.1% State 2003 410,794 43.6% 46.2% 35.3% 25.3% 28.3% 28.3% 2006 435,818 56.4% 43.8% 36.7% 22.1% 48.2% 24.6% 2011 455,311 65.0% 53.9% 43.2% 25.8% 59.8% 26.3% Source: Housing Demand Survey, 1992, 1997, 2003,2006, and 2011 Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 78 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 Table A-11a. Intention to Move, 1992, 1997, 2003, 2006, and 2011 Intention to Move Raw When Household Will Move Probably Will Move Demand- More Total Will Not to a New Total Will In 1 In 2 3 to 5 Than 5 Not Sure County Year Households Move Unit Move Year Years Years Years When 1992 247,349 42.6% 57.4% 142,090 29.2% 21.5% 19.0% 10.2% 20.1% 1997 272,234 44.8% 55.2% 150,194 23.5% 20.9% 16.2% 10.9% 28.5% Honolulu 2003 292,003 56.3% 43.7% 127,683 27.9% 20.5% 19.3% 10.3% 22.0% 2006 303,149 61.2% 38.8% 117,597 24.5% 22.9% 15.5% 8.2% 29.0% 2011 310,882 45.4% 54.6% 168,946 21.5% 21.4% 20.1% 15.6% 21.5% 1992 34,266 56.8% 43.2% 14,793 28.6% 24.7% 17.1% 9.2% 20.4% 1997 39,252 51.9% 48.1% 18,894 23.1% 17.2% 13.4% 18.2% 28.1% Maui 2003 43,687 51.9% 48.1% 18,205 22.1% 20.6% 18.6% 10.0% 28.7% 2006 49,484 54.9% 45.1% 22,318 19.6% 26.9% 15.0% 14.0% 24.5% 2011 54,132 52.9% 47.1% 25,282 24.8% 19.4% 17.6% 16.1% 22.2% 1992 39,789 55.6% 44.4% 17,685 28.8% 20.8% 17.8% 14.0% 18.6% 1997 46,271 60.0% 40.0% 18,491 22.3% 18.1% 15.5% 15.9% 28.2% Hawaii 2003 54,644 55.6% 44.4% 21,252 21.4% 19.2% 15.9% 17.3% 26.2% 2006 61,213 57.9% 42.1% 25,769 22.4% 19.3% 19.4% 11.2% 27.7% 2011 67,096 58.4% 41.6% 28,223 20.9% 12.9% 24.9% 20.8% 20.6% 1992 16,981 56.8% 43.2% 7,337 32.8% 17.4% 21.4% 6.4% 22.0% 1997 18,817 58.0% 42.0% 7,907 17.1% 13.9% 16.3% 15.3% 37.4% Kauai 2003 20,460 63.5% 36.5% 7,468 22.1% 22.4% 15.6% 12.1% 27.9% 2006 21,971 64.4% 35.6% 7,826 23.4% 17.5% 13.6% 17.1% 28.4% 2011 23,201 57.2% 42.8% 9,628 30.3% 15.5% 15.1% 18.3% 20.8% 1992 338,385 46.2% 53.8% 181,905 29.2% 21.5% 18.8% 10.4% 20.1% 1997 376,574 48.1% 51.9% 195,486 23.1% 20.0% 15.9% 12.3% 28.8% State 2003 410,794 57.5% 42.5% 174,608 26.3% 20.5% 18.6% 11.2% 23.5% 2006 435,817 60.2% 39.8% 173,510 23.5% 22.6% 15.9% 9.8% 28.2% 2011 1 455,311 1 49.2% 50.8% 1 232,079 1 22.1% 19.8% 20.2% 16.4% 21.4% Source. Housing Demand Survey, 1992, 1997, 2003, 2006 and 2011 Base for Intention to Move is all respondent households. Base for When Household Will Move is 232,078 households who provided a time frame or said not sure (excludes probably never move) Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 79 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 Table A-11 b. Preferred Location for Next Move, 1992, 1997, 2003, 2006, and 2011 Preferred Location for Next Move Total Final Demand - Same Different Out-of- County Year Households Total Will Movea Island Island Not Sure State 1992 247,349 142,090 62.2% 5.3% 6.3% 26.1% 1997 272,234 150,194 52.5% 4.3% 11.0% 32.2% Honolulu 2003 292,003 127,683 65.7% 2.8% 11.6% 19.8% 2006 303,149 117,597 66.1% 4.5% 8.9% 20.5% 2011 310,882 132,696 63.4% 4.3% 5.6% 26.6% 1992 34,266 14,793 71.7% 13.3% 5.7% 9.4% 1997 39,252 18,894 72.5% 2.7% 13.0% 11.8% Maui 2003 43,687 18,205 68.3% 6.9% 10.8% 14.0% 2006 49,484 22,318 71.5% 9.5% 6.7% 12.3% 2011 54,132 19,774 58.5% 5.4% 24.9% 11.2% 1992 39,789 17,685 80.9% 4.2% 4.4% 10.6% 1997 46,271 18,491 74.3% 4.0% 7.7% 14.0% Havvai'i 2003 54,644 21,252 73.4% 5.4% 12.1% 9.1% 2006 61,213 25,769 73.0% 6.0% 9.4% 11.5% 2011 67,096 22,327 61.9% 7.8% 8.3% 22.1% 1992 16,981 7,337 76.7% 6.2% 6.0% 11.1% 1997 18,817 7,907 69.8% 5.7% 10.1% 14.3% Kauai 2003 20,460 7,468 71.8% 9.7% 9.0% 9.5% 2006 21,971 7,826 64.8% 7.4% 9.1% 18.7% 2011 23,201 7,586 62.8% 7.0% 11.1% 19.2% 1992 338,385 181,904 65.4% 5.9% 6.1% 22.6% 1997 376,574 195,485 57.2% 4.2% 10.9% 27.8% State 2003 410,794 174,607 67.2% 3.9% 11.5% 17.5% 2006 435,818 173,511 67.8% 5.5% 8.7% 18.0% 2011 1 455,311 1 182,384 1 62.6% 5.0% 8.7% 23.8% Source. Housing Demand Survey, 1992, 1997, 2003, 2006, and 2011 a The total numberof Total Will Move households differs from Table A-1 la because in 2011 the 21.4% of mover households (49,695)who said theymight move but had no idea when were notasked subsequent questions regarding where theywere moving, preferences fortheir next unit, etc. Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 80 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 Table A-12. Tenancy Preference of Current Owners & Renters, 1992, 1997, 2003, 2006, and 2011 Current Owners Current Renters Effective Planned Next Planned Next Demand-Total Tenancy Tenancy County Year Will Move' Total Buy Rent° Total` Buy Rent° 1992 127,810 33,243 89.7% 10.3% 94,567 32.7% 67.3% 1997 128,791 44,335 89.1% 10.9% 84,456 44.0% 56.0% Honolulu 2003 113,638 41,616 85.5% 14.5% 72,022 55.4% 44.6% 2006 100,545 30,973 86.8% 13.2% 69,572 55.4% 44.6% 2011 97,429 32,688 74.2% 25.8% 64,621 25.1% 68.3% 1992 13,284 4,600 87.6% 12.4% 8,684 49.5% 50.5% 1997 16,239 6,450 84.8% 15.2% 9,789 46.8% 53.2% Maui 2003 15,593 5,657 95.1% 4.9% 9,936 52.4% 47.6% 2006 19,584 7,083 92.0% 8.0% 12,501 52.3% 47.7% 2011 16,937 5,370 72.0% 28.0% 11,396 29.4% 70.6% 1992 16,004 7,132 93.7% 6.3% 8,872 64.9% 35.1% 1997 15,884 7,694 87.5% 12.5% 8,190 49.6% 50.4% Hawaii 2003 18,471 8,679 90.0% 10.0% 9,792 57.1% 42.9% 2006 22,200 10,264 93.8% 6.2% 11,936 54.7% 45.3% 2011 17,412 6,838 1 70.1% 29.9% 10,540 37.2% 62.8% 1992 6,530 2,264 95.9% 4.1% 4,266 54.9% 45.1% 1997 6,428 2,054 92.9% 7.1% 4,374 48.2% 51.8% Kauai 2003 6,426 2,737 90.5% 9.5% 3,689 51.6% 48.4% 2006 6,715 2,614 87.6% 12.4% 4,101 39.3% 60.7% 2011 6,339 1,700 61.3% 38.7% 4,521 20.9% 79.1% 1992 163,664 47,239 90.4% 9.6% 116,425 37.2% 62.8% 1997 167,343 60,533 88.6% 11.4% 106,810 44.9% 55.1% State 2003 154,129 58,689 87.6% 12.4% 95,440 55.1% 44.9% 2006 149,044 50,934 89.0% 11.0% 98,110 54.3% 45.7% 2011 1 138,116 1 46,595 1 72.9% 27.1% 1 91,079 126.8% 73.2% Source. Housing Demand Survey, 1992, 1997,2003, 2006 and 2011 Base for Total Will Move is households who plan to move, have some idea when theywill move, and plan to stayin the State of Hawai'i when theymove Base for Current Owners is 46,494 households included in the 138,116 Total Will Move households that own their current residence. Base for Current Renters is 91 ,088 households included in the 138,116 Total Will Move households that currently rent their unit or occupywithout paying cash rent. a The total number of mover households differs from Table A-11 b because in 2011 the 23.8% of mover households (44,268)who planned to move out of the State were not asked subsequent questions regarding preferences for their next unit,financial qualifications,etc. Total Current Owners and Total Current Renters do not sum to Total Will Move because those households that refused to provide their current tenancywere excluded from the analysis. u Includes households that plan to rent or are not sure about their next tenancy. Includes households that currently rent or occupywithout payment of cash rent. Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 81 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 Table A-13a. Preferred Unit Type, Buyers, 1992, 1997, 2003, 2006, and 2011 Total Preferred Unit Type Will Single No County Year Move' Family Townhouse I Condo Apartment Other Preference 1992 60,724 73.9% 14.3% 8.7% 1.1% 0.0% 2.0% 1997 76,663 78.7% 4.2% 12.7% 0.2% 1.3% 2.9% Honolulu 2003 75,482 78.6% 5.1% 6.8% 1.8% 1.3% 6.4% 2006 65,495 69.7% 7.5% 12.7% 1.0% 1.3% 8.6% 2011 40,483 61.0% 7.2% 26.7% 0.0% 2.0% 3.1% 1992 8,328 89.7% 2.5% 5.3% 0.6% 1.9% 0.0% 1997 10,051 87.1% 2.2% 8.0% 0.8% 0.0% 1.9% Maui 2003 10,586 85.0% 1.2% 7.4% 1.6% 0.1% 4.7% P 2006 12,539 85.6% 2.7% 7.6% 0.0% 0.4% 3.7% L 2011 7,156 83.0% 5.7% 9.7% 0.0% 0.4% 1.2% A N 1992 12,441 91.8% 3.3% 2.2% 1.0% 0.8% 0.9% 1997 10,794 91.7% 1.9% 4.8% 0.2% 0.2% 1.1% T Hawaii 2003 13,402 91.4% 1.8% 2.1% 0.5% 0.2% 4.0% O 2006 15,940 84.2% 4.4% 4.9% 0.0% 2.1% 4.4% 2011 8,711 87.3% 4.0% 5.9% 0.0% 1.0% 1.8% B 1992 4,513 95.1% 1.1% 2.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% U Y 1997 4,016 91.0% 4.1% 4.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Kauai 2003 4,381 86.9% 3.8% 5.8% 0.0% 1.7% 1.8% 2006 3,879 79.0% 5.3% 8.2% 0.0% 1.3% 6.1% 2011 2,046 81.8% 4.4% 8.3% 0.0% 2.8% 2.6% 1992 86,006 79.2% 10.9% 7.1% 1.0% 0.1% 1.7% 1997 101,524 81.4% 3.8% 11.0% 0.3% 1.0% 2.5% State 2003 103,851 81.3% 4.3% 6.2% 1.5% 1.0% 5.7% 2006 97,853 74.5% 6.3% 10.6% 1.0% 1.3% 7.2% 2011 58,395 68.3% 6.5% 20.9% 0.0% 1.7% 2.6% Source: Housing Demand Survey, 1992, 1997, 2003,2006, and 2011 ' Total Will Move is households that plan to move, have some idea when they will move, plan to stay in the State when they move, and want to buy their next unit rather than rent. Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 82 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 Table A-13b. Preferred Unit Type, Renters, 1992, 1997, 2003, 2006, and 2011 Total Preferred Unit Type Will Single No County Year Move' Family ownhous Condo Apartment Other Preferenc 1992 67,086 64.3% 3.9% 12.5% 13.6% 0.6% 5.1% 1997 52,128 50.8% 8.3% 11.4% 19.3% 1-1% 9-1% Honolulu 2003 38,156 56.0% 9.1% 4.1% 21.1% 2.9% 6.8% 2006 40,585 41.3% 10.7% 8.3% 28.8% 2.8% 8.2% 2011 46,396 34.5% 4.3% 13.8% 44.2% 2.0% 1.2% 1992 4,956 82.1% 3.8% 6.3% 4.1% 3.7% 0.0% 1997 6,188 60.3% 3.9% 14.0% 17.6% 2.0% 2.2% P Maui 2003 5,007 77.9% 6.7% 4.7% 7.2% 1.8% 1.7% L 2006 7,265 65.1% 0.8% 11.4% 14.1% 0.5% 8.0% A 2011 7,751 57.3% 7.8% 5.0% 14.8% 5.4% 9.7% N 1992 3,563 80.1% 5.4% 4.7% 4.7% 0.0% 5.1% 1997 5,090 65.3% 4.1% 4.7% 16.4% 3.4% 6.1% T Hawaii 2003 5,069 69.9% 1.3% 5.0% 18.1% 3.4% 2.3% O 2006 7,659 61.6% 4.5% 7.7% 15.8% 5.4% 5.0% R 2011 6,294 74.1% 4.8% 2.8% 11.7% 1.8% 4.8% E 1992 2,017 84.4% 3.6% 8.1% 0.8% 3.2% 0.0% N 1997 2,412 79.3% 2.3% 1.1% 5.3% 2.3% 9.7% T Kauai 2003 2,045 77.3% 0.0% 1.7% 12.9% 0.0% 8.1% 2006 3,177 64.4% 2.0% 9.8% 10.9% 5.7% 7.1% 2011 3,525 66.5% 1.8% 11.9% 10.6% 3.9% 5.3% 1992 77,622 66.7% 4.0% 11.6% 12.3% 0.8% 4.6% 1997 65,818 53.9% 7.3% 10.8% 18.4% 1.4% 8.2% State 2003 50,277 60.4% 7.7% 10.8% 19.1% 2.7% 5.9% 2006 58,686 48.1% 8.2% 10.8% 24.3% 3.0% 7.7% 2011 63,697 42.9% 4.6% 11.6% 35.6% 2.5% 2.8% Source: Housing Demand Survey, 1992, 1997, 2003,2006, and 2011 a Total Will Move is households that plan to move, have some idea when they will move, plan to stay in the State when they move, and want to rent their next unit. Households who planned to move in with friends or family, some other tenancy, or did not know what their next tenancy would be were not asked subsequent questions regarding preferences for their next unit, financial qualifications, etc. and are not included in the data presented. Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 83 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 Table A-14a. Preferred Number of Bedrooms, Buyers, 1992, 1997, 2003, 2006, and 2011 Preferred Number of Bedrooms Total Will No Year Move' Studio or One Two Three Four or More Preference 1992 60,724 2.9% 30.5% 43.3% 23.3% 0.0% 1 997 76,663 1.4% 17.6% 49.1% 31.0% 0.8% Honolulu 2003 75,482 3.9% 22.3% 46.7% 25.5% 1.6% 2006 65,495 0.1% 15.1% 41.6% 39.0% 4.2% 2011 40,483 4.5% 23.6% 37.8% 34.1% 0.0% 1992 8,328 0.4% 27.5% 56.9% 15.2% 0.0% 1 997 10,051 6.4% 19.7% 44.5% 28.1% 1.2% P Maui 2003 10,586 4.1% 21.8% 37.7% 36.0% 0.4% L 2006 12,539 1.7% 19.9% 46.0% 31.7% 0.7% A 2011 7,156 1 1.1% 20.2% 49.1% 29.3% 0.4% N 1 992 12,441 1.1% 25.4% 55.9% 17.3% 0.3% 1997 10,794 6.2% 22.7% 40.3% 29.0% 1.7% T Hawaii 2003 13,402 4.0% 18.4% 45.9% 31.7% 0.0% 0 2006 15,940 3.1% 17.1% 41.2% 35.4% 3.3% 2011 8,711 9.5% 29.7% 34.5% 25.3% 1.1% B 1992 4,513 0.7% 29.3% 48.3% 21.7% 0.0% U 1997 4,016 1.6% 21.9% 51.6% 24.9% 0.0% Y Kauai 2003 4,381 5.0% 19.5% 37.6% 37.5% 0.4% 2006 3,879 0.8% 18.5% 46.3% 34.1% 0.3% 2011 2,046 1.2% 16.5% 49.1% 33.2% 0.0% 1 992 86,006 2.3% 29.4% 46.7% 21.6% 0.1% 1 997 101,524 2.5% 18.5% 47.8% 30.3% 0.9% State 2003 103,851 4.0% 21.6% 45.2% 28.0% 1.2% 2006 97,853 0.8% 16.2% 42.3% 37.3% 3.5% 2011 58,395 4.7% 23.8% 39.1% 32.1% 0.2% Source: Housing Demand Survey, 1992, 1997, 2003,2006, and 2011 ' Total Will Move is households that plan to move, have some idea when they will move, plan to stay in the State when they move, and want to buy their next unit rather than rent. Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 84 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 Table A-14b. Preferred Number of Bedrooms, Renters, 1992, 1997, 2003, 2006, and 2011 Preferred Number of Bedrooms Total Will No County Year Move' Studio or One Two Th ree Four or More Preference 1992 67,086 15.2% 40.0% 35.3% 9.5% 0.0% 1997 52,128 7.3% 40.2% 32.4% 19.7% 0.4% Honolulu 2003 38,156 17.7% 40.6% 28.0% 12.4% 1.3% 2006 40,585 11.8% 35.1% 33.4% 16.3% 3.5% 2011 46,396 21.2% 42.8% 29.9% 5.7% 0.4% 1992 4,956 6.4% 41.0% 49.0% 1.0% 2.6% P 1997 6,188 17.9% 34.3% 34.8% 12.7% 0.2% L Maui 2003 5,007 9.1% 37.4% 34.0% 18.1% 1.4% A 2006 7,265 7.5% 43.7% 35.9% 11.9% 1.0% N 2011 7,751 11.6% 47.3% 34.8% 6.3% 0.0% 1992 3,563 5.1% 43.9% 38.7% 12.3% 0.0% T 1997 5,090 10.7% 31.7% 40.1% 16.8% 0.6% O Hawaii 2003 5,069 18.0% 35.9% 37.5% 8.6% 0.0% 2006 7,659 9.3% 31.6% 41.2% 16.6% 1.3% R 2011 6,294 1 7.6% 37.6% 34.7% 20.1% 0.0% E 1992 2,017 0.8% 38.1% 47.8% 13.3% 0.0% N 1997 2,412 4.6% 14.7% 63.8% 14.3% 2.6% T Kauai 2003 2,045 17.8% 23.7% 44.3% 11.7% 2.5% 2006 3,177 7.3% 33.3% 41.7% 17.1% 0.5% 2011 3,525 12.9% 44.6% 31.9% 8.6% 2.1% 1992 77,622 13.8% 40.2% 36.6% 9.2% 0.2% 1997 65,818 8.5% 38.0% 34.4% 18.6% 0.5% State 2003 50,277 17.7% 40.6% 28.0% 12.4% 1.3% 2006 58,686 10.7% 35.6% 35.1% 15.8% 2.7% 2011 63,697 18.3% 42.9% 31.0% 7.4% 0.4% Source: Housing Demand Survey, 1992, 1997, 2003,2006, and 2011 ' Total Will Move is households that plan to move, have some idea when they will move, plan to stay in the State when they move, and want to rent their next unit. Households who planned to move in with friends or family, some other tenancy, or did not know what their next tenancy would be were not asked subsequent questions regarding preferences for their next unit, financial qualifications, etc. and are not included in the data presented. Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 85 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 Table A-15a. Affordable Housing Cost for New Units, Buyers, 1992, 1997, 2003, 2006, and 2011 Source. Housing Demand Survey, 1992, 1997, 2003, 2006 and 2011 a Based on self-reportfrom respondents regarding the level of monthly payment theywou Id be able to afford. Hawaii Housing Planning Study, 2011 Page 86 ©SMS, Inc. November, 2011 Affordable Monthly Housing Costa Less Total Will than $i $500 to $800 to $1,1 to $1,400 to $1,70 $2,000 to More than County Year Move $200 A6 $799 $1,099 $ $1,699 $1,9 $3,000 $3,000 1992 60,724 0.9% 1.1% 14.7% 29.9% 10.7% 22.0% 7.7% 5.9% 7.2% 1997 76,663 0.0% 0.6% 9.3% 21.7% 18.4% 20.7% 11.6% 14.2% 3.4% Honolulu 2003 75,482 2.4% 1.3% 4.5% 14.1% 15.5% 17.3% 19.4% 19.1% 6.5% 2006 65,495 1.8% 3.9% 6.7% 9.3% 9.2% 12.0% 6.0% 21.5% 13.3% 2011 40,483 0.1% 0.8% 3.1% 7.0% 9.0% 4.3% 8.8% 27.4% 39.5% 1 992 8,328 3.1% 5.5% 36.5% 23.6% 12.7% 8.4% 4.7% 4.0% 1.5% 1 997 10,051 1.1% 6.2% 20.5% 30.8% 13.5% 14.6% 5.4% 6.3% 1.6% P Maui 2003 10,586 1.8% 5.9% 11.9% 26.8% 13.4% 12.7% 9.6% 12.1% 5.8% 1 2006 12,539 2.0% 2.5% 4.3% 7.9% 9.3% 13.8% 8.7% 28.8% 12.4% a 2011 7,156 0.0% 0.2% 0.6% 7.7% 5.8% 19.1% 5.3% 32.7% 28.8% n 1 992 12,441 0.9% 3.4% 17.6% 31.0% 22.8% 11.3% 4.9% 5.0% 3.2% 1997 10,794 0.9% 3.1% 9.6% 25.0% 12.6% 26.0% 9.6% 10.7% 2.5% t Hawaii 2003 13,402 1.3% 1.7% 7.2% 16.9% 15.2% 15.6% 20.5% 13.8% 7.9% 0 2006 15,940 1.4% 3.2% 6.3% 17.8% 8.2% 12.8% 2.3% 18.6% 10.7% 2011 8,711 1.7% 1.6% 6.8% 10.5% 11.2% 18.3% 6.0% 22.2% 21.6% B 1 992 4,513 0.0% 1.6% 14.5% 31.3% 23.6% 14.7% 8.5% 4.6% 1.2% u 1 997 4,016 1.0% 4.5% 13.1% 28.0% 17.2% 16.6% 9.6% 7.5% 2.4% y Kauai 2003 4,381 1.5% 1.2% 5.7% 21.3% 15.8% 22.3% 14.4% 12.6% 5.2% 2006 3,879 1.4% 2.4% 3.6% 12.9% 12.4% 12.9% 5.4% 20.1% 13.5% 2011 2,046 2.3% 6.3% 2.1% 11.7% 4.8% 14.7% 9.4% 24.0% 24.8% 1 992 86,006 1.0% 1.9% 17.2% 29.5% 13.4% 18.7% 7.0% 5.5% 5.7% 1 997 101,524 0.3% 1.6% 10.6% 23.2% 17.3% 20.5% 10.7% 12.8% 3.1% State 2003 103,851 2.1% 1.8% 5.6% 16.0% 15.3% 16.8% 18.3% 17.4% 6.5% 2006 97,853 1.8% 3.5% 6.2% 10.5% 9.2% 12.4% 5.8% 21.9% 12.8% 2011 1 58,395 1 0.4% 1.0% 3.3% 7.8% 8.8% 8.7% 7.9% 27.1% 34.9% Source. Housing Demand Survey, 1992, 1997, 2003, 2006 and 2011 a Based on self-reportfrom respondents regarding the level of monthly payment theywou Id be able to afford. Hawaii Housing Planning Study, 2011 Page 86 ©SMS, Inc. November, 2011 Table A-15b. Affordable Housing Cost for New Units, Renters, 1992, 1997, 2003, 2006, and 2011 Source. Housing Demand Survey, 1992, 1997, 2003, 2006 and 2011 Based on self-reportfrom respondents regarding the level of monthly payment they would be able to afford. The total numberof mover households differs from Table B-12 because in 2011 the 11.3% of mover households (15,558) who did not know whether they planned to buy, rent, or move in with friends orfamilywere notasked subsequent questions regarding preferences fortheir next unit,financial qualifications, etc. Hawaii Housing Planning Study, 2011 Page 87 ©SMS, Inc. November, 2011 Affordable Monthly Housing Costa Total Will Le than $200 to to 999 $800 to $1,100 to $1,400 to $1 7 0 to More than County Year Move $499 $1,099 $1,399 $1,699 00 $3,000 1992 67,086 1.5% 2.8% 29.6% 35.1% 16.3% 9.6% 2.8% 2.3% 70% 1997 52,128 2.0% 7.5% 26.1% 31.6% 16.7% 10.6% 3.1% 2.4% 0.0% Honolulu 2003 38,156 4.4% 10.2% 19.0% 24.9% 11.4% 11.4% 10.3% 5.2% 3.2% 2006 40,585 0.0% 7.8% 13.6% 21.1% 13.3% 9.5% 8.8% 6.7% 5.0% 2011 46,396 0.0% 2.2% 14.6% 22.5% 18.7% 12.2% 6.6% 18.5% 4.7% 1992 4,956 0.9% 7.6% 53.2% 29.2% 6.8% 2.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 1997 6,188 4.6% 18.7% 41.7% 21.8% 5.1% 4.5% 1.8% 1.9% 0.0% P Maui 2003 5,007 8.0% 11.0% 38.6% 22.2% 9.0% 8.0% 0.0% 1.7% 1.5% I 2006 7,265 0.0% 10.2% 12.9% 19.9% 12.5% 17.3% 5.2% 9.1% 3.6% a 2011 7,751 3.1% 5.2% 8.1% 30.8% 14.3% 18.9% 8.6% 7.2% 3.9% n 1992 3,563 0.1% 6.6% 23.8% 32.4% 25.2% 9.7% 1.0% 1.0% 0.0% 1997 5,090 6.0% 15.5% 26.5% 31.6% 15.3% 2.9% 0.6% 1.7% 0.0% t Hawaii 2003 5,069 7.8% 5.3% 17.7% 33.2% 10.0% 11.2% 3.8% 11.0% 0.0% 0 2006 7,659 0.0% 18.3% 16.5% 19.1% 10.7% 9.9% 5.8% 8.6% 1.6% R 2011 6,294 4.8% 10.5% 21.0% 22.9% 8.1% 8.8% 12.5% 7.6% 3.8% 1992 2,017 1.0% 8.2% 30.3% 21.4% 22.2% 17.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% e 1997 2,412 6.7% 16.2% 43.0% 24.3% 4.4% 3.7% 1.8% 0.0% 0.0% n Kauai 2003 2,045 4.2% 2.2% 13.8% 34.9% 15.7% 15.0% 2.5% 11.7% 0.0% t 2006 3,177 0.0% 9.1% 5.2% 17.7% 15.3% 25.0% 4.5% 7.1% 4.9% 2011 3,525 3.4% 5.3% 8.1% 14.9% 15.7% 16.7% 7.1% 25.9% 2.9% 1992 77,622 1.4% 3.4% 30.8% 34.2% 16.3% 9.3% 2.5% 2.0% 0.0% 1997 65,818 2.7% 9.5% 28.2% 30.4% 15.0% 9.2% 2.7% 2.2% 0.0% State 2003 50,277 5.1% 9.5% 20.6% 25.9% 11.2% 11.2% 8.3% 5.7% 2.6% 2006 58,686 0.0% 9.5% 13.4% 20.5% 13.0% 11.4% 7.8% 7.2% 4.4% 2011 63,697 1.3% 3.8% 14.1% 23.2% 16.6% 13.0% 7.6% 16.1% 4.3% Source. Housing Demand Survey, 1992, 1997, 2003, 2006 and 2011 Based on self-reportfrom respondents regarding the level of monthly payment they would be able to afford. The total numberof mover households differs from Table B-12 because in 2011 the 11.3% of mover households (15,558) who did not know whether they planned to buy, rent, or move in with friends orfamilywere notasked subsequent questions regarding preferences fortheir next unit,financial qualifications, etc. Hawaii Housing Planning Study, 2011 Page 87 ©SMS, Inc. November, 2011 Table A-16. Preferred Location of New Housing Unit, 2011 Source: Housing Demand Survey, 2011. Note. Districts reported correspond to definitions required by the Counties in the Request for Proposal. Windward includes Kdolauloa and Ko'olaupoko, Leeward includes Ewa, and Central Oahu includes the North Shore. Respondents were permitted to provide up to four responses for preferred next location. Hawaii Housing Planning Study, 2011 Page 88 ©SMS, Inc. November, 2011 County of Residence Honolulu Maui Hawaii Kauai State Preferred Next Location Count Pct. Count Pct. Count Pct. Count Pct. Count Pct. HONOLULU PUC 40,591 46.8% 416 2.9% 780 5.3% 58 1.2% 41,846 34.6% Central Oahu 10775 12.4% 103 0.7% 140 1.0% 157 3.1% 11,175 9.2% East Honolulu 7,673 8.9% 18 0.1% 223 1.5% 139 2.8% 8,052 6.7% Windward Oahu 8,475 9.8% 73 0.5% 189 1.3% 8,736 7.2% Leeward Oahu 10,142 11.7% 222 1.5% 185 1.3% 52 1.0% 10,601 8.8% Oahu, any 2,662 3.1% 258 1.8% 84 1.7% 3,003 2.5% HAWAII South Kona-Ka'u 139 1.0% 133 0.9% 236 4.7% 507 0.4% Puna 1,965 13.4% 37 0.7% 2,002 1.7% North & South Hilo 788 0.9% 351 2.4% 3,520 24.0% 26 0.5% 4,685 3.9% North Hawai'i 570 0.7% 155 1.1% 1,713 11.7% 34 0.7% 2,471 2.0% North Kona 622 4.3% 3,040 20.7% 3,662 3.0% Waimea (BI) 713 4.9% 713 0.6% Hawai'i island, any 426 0.5% 160 1.1% 969 6.6% 17 0.3% 1,571 1.3% Hana 105 0.7% 147 1.0% 381 7.6% 633 0.5% Makawao-Pukalani-Kula 2,464 16.9% 47 0.3% 27 0.5% 2,539 2.1% Wailuku-Kahului 810 1.0% 2,657 18.2% 10 0.2% 3,477 2.9% Paia-Haiku 782 0.9% 1,061 7.3% 55 0.4% 1,899 1.6% Kihei-Makena 782 0.9% 2,681 18.4% 112 2.2% 3,576 3.0% West Maui 1,315 9.0% 135 0.9% 162 3.2% 1,613 1.3% Moloka'i 325 2.2% 24 0.5% 349 0.3% Lana'i 116 0.1% 45 0.3% 161 0.1% Maui, any 763 0.9% 1,549 10.6% 63 0.4% 2,374 2.0% Waimea (Kaua'i) 75 1.5% 75 0.1% Koloa 34 0.2% 841 16.7% 875 0.7% Lihue 40 0.3% 176 1.2% 869 17.3% 1,085 0.9% Kawaihau 524 0.6% 129 0.9% 417 8.3% 1,070 0.9% Hanalei 698 13.9% 698 0.6% Kaua'i, any 810 1.0% 74 0.5% 38 0.3% 576 11.4% 1,499 1.2% Total 86,689 89.0% 14,574 86.1% 14,653 84.2% 5,033 79.4% 120,948 87.6% Total No Preference 10,740 11.0% 2,363 13.9% 2,759 15.8% 1,306 20.6% 17,168 12.4% Total Will Mo\e 97,429 100.0% 16,937 100.0% 17,412 100.0% 6,339 100.0% 138,116 100.0% Source: Housing Demand Survey, 2011. Note. Districts reported correspond to definitions required by the Counties in the Request for Proposal. Windward includes Kdolauloa and Ko'olaupoko, Leeward includes Ewa, and Central Oahu includes the North Shore. Respondents were permitted to provide up to four responses for preferred next location. Hawaii Housing Planning Study, 2011 Page 88 ©SMS, Inc. November, 2011 APPENDIX B: HOUSING DATA BY DISTRICT, COUNTY OF HAWAII, 2011 Table B-1. Current Housing Situation, Districts and County of Hawaii, 2011 South North & Kona to South North North County of Ka'u Puna Hilo Hawai'i Kona Hawai'i TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS 5,375 16,956 18,156 10,458 15,166 66,111 TENANCY Own 78.7% 73.2% 63.7% 68.1% 59.1% 67.0% Rent 21.3% 26.8% 36.3% 31.9% 40.9% 33.0% UNIT TYPE Single family house 89.5% 96.3% 84.7% 82.4% 76.5% 85.8% Townhouse 1.8% 0.3% 1.2% 2.2% 0.8% 1.1% Condominium 1.4% 1.7% 5.9% 8.0% 3.3% Duplex/multiplex 0.3% 0.6% 2.4% 1.1% 3.2% 1.8% Apartment 5.5% 0.8% 8.2% 6.6% 9.2% 6.1% Co-op 0.3% 0.3% 0.1% Other 1.5% 1.6% 1.8% 1.6% 2.3% 1.8% NUMBER OF BEDROOMS Studio or One 14.6% 14.3% 11.4% 10.4% 11.3% 12.2% Two 24.0% 20.7% 14.9% 24.2% 24.0% 20.7% Three 41.6% 49.4% 51.5% 46.0% 44.3% 47.6% Four plus 19.8% 15.6% 22.1% 19.4% 20.4% 19.4% NUMBER OF BATHROOMS 1 bathroom 30.6% 30.0% 27.3% 26.0% 24.7% 27.5% 2 bathrooms 46.9% 49.3% 48.5% 50.0% 47.5% 48.6% 3 bathrooms 15.6% 16.5% 19.3% 21.2% 21.0% 19.0% 4+ bathrooms 6.1% 4.0% 4.6% 2.8% 6.2% 4.6% Not reported 0.8% 0.2% 0.2% 0.7% 0.3% CONDITION OF OWNED UNITS Excellent 48.6% 49.6% 38.2% 53.3% 62.4% 49.7% Satisfactory 41.8% 38.9% 43.5% 34.3% 31.9% 38.2% Fair 7.4% 8.4% 15.5% 7.0% 4.7% 9.2% Poor 2.2% 3.1% 2.7% 5.4% 1.1% 2.9% CONDITION OF RENTED UNITS Excellent 40.4% 44.1% 28.3% 36.5% 42.7% 37.6% Satisfactory 35.8% 40.4% 46.1% 43.7% 37.5% 41.6% Fair 14.9% 12.3% 20.6% 13.3% 9.9% 14.4% Poor 8.9% 3.1% 5.0% 6.5% 9.9% 6.4% Source: Housing Demand Survey, 2011 Note. Only households able to be assigned to a district are included so percentages may differ slightly from data presented in trend tables by county. Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 89 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 Table B-2. Current Housing Situation, Districts and County of Hawaii, 2011 South North & County Kona to South North North of Ka'u Puna Hilo Hawai'i Kona Hawai'i TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS 5,375 16,956 18,156 10,458 15,166 66,111 YEARS IN CURRENT UNIT Less than 1 year 4.2% 6.2% 5.4% 8.8% 12.6% 7.7% 1 to 5 years 20.9% 34.7% 32.1% 33.9% 36.7% 33.2% 6 to 10 years 16.4% 19.2% 17.6% 18.7% 19.3% 18.5% More than 10 years 58.0% 39.1% 44.8% 38.6% 31.4% 40.4% Not reported 0.6% 0.8% 0.1% 0.3% HOUSEHOLD TYPES Single Member 30.9% 24.1% 22.3% 22.3% 23.5% 23.7% Married, No Children 26.1% 18.6% 20.7% 28.9% 28.3% 23.6% Parent(s) and Children 13.4% 12.0% 12.9% 16.2% 16.8% 14.1% Unrelated Roomates 5.2% 8.7% 8.7% 4.3% 7.0% 7.3% Multiple Families 23.0% 35.1% 34.1% 28.3% 23.4% 30.1% Undetermined 1.4% 1.5% 1.3% 1.0% 1.1% KIDS IN HOUSEHOLD At Least One Child 23.4% 29.5% 26.7% 28.4% 28.4% 27.8% No Children 76.6% 70.5% 73.3% 71.6% 71.6% 72.2% SENIORS IN HOUSEHOLD Single Person Household, 60+ 22.9% 16.5% 12.7% 18.2% 17.4% 16.5% 2+ Household Members, All 60+ 21.0% 13.1% 17.4% 19.2% 20.8% 17.7% 2+ Household Members, Only Some 60+ 56.1% 70.4% 70.0% 62.7% 61.7% 65.9 25 Source: Housing Demand Survey, 2011 Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 90 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 Table B-3. Current Financial Situation, Districts and County of Hawaii, 2011 South North & County Kona to South North of Ka'u Puna Hilo Hawai'i North Kona Hawai'i TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS 5,375 16,956 18,156 10,458 15,166 66,111 HOUSEHOLD INCOME less than $15,000 17.5% 21.1% 19.3% 11.9% 15.9% 17.7% $15,000 to $24,999 11.8% 16.2% 10.8% 15.0% 13.3% 13.5% $25,000 to $49,999 26.2% 26.2% 27.3% 27.5% 18.7% 25.0% $50,000 to $74,999 19.8% 14.8% 16.6% 16.5% 19.6% 17.1% $75,000 to $99,999 8.5% 8.9% 9.1% 11.0% 12.2% 10.0% more than $100,000 16.2% 12.9% 16.9% 18.2% 20.2% 16.8% HUD INCOME LEVELS 30% or less 19.1% 26.4% 21.5% 13.4% 19.0% 20.7% 30% to 50% 16.2% 17.0% 15.8% 18.3% 14.9% 16.3% 50% to 80% 19.8% 17.5% 20.5% 23.3% 17.7% 19.5% 80% to 120% 16.7% 13.9% 11.9% 11.8% 13.4% 13.1% 120% to 140% 3.5% 6.3% 7.4% 6.6% 4.8% 6.1% 140% to 180% 10.3% 6.0% 6.8% 11.5% 10.6% 8.5% Over 180% 1 14.4% 12.9% 16.1% 15.2% 19.6% 15.8% SHELTER-TO-INCOME RATIO No shelter cost 33.5% 25.2% 23.8% 16.2% 12.9% 21.3% less than 30 percent 40.7% 35.4% 36.2% 40.9% 34.2% 36.7% 30 to 40 percent 11.4% 13.0% 15.0% 9.3% 14.3% 13.1% Over 40 percent 14.4% 26.5% 1 24.9% 1 33.7% 1 38.6% 1 29.0% Source: Housing Demand Survey, 2011 Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 91 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 Table B-4. Crowding and At Risk for Homelessness, Districts and County of Hawai'i, 2011 South North & County Kona to South North North of Ka'u Puna Hilo Hawai'i Kona Hawai'i TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS 5,375 16,956 18,156 10,458 15,166 66,111 HH THAT ARE DOUBLED UP Yes 8.1% 14.7% 12.6% 10.3% 9.5% 11.7% No 91.9% 85.3% 87.4% 89.7% 90.5% 88.3% PERSONS PER ROOM Less than 1.00 83.1% 82.2% 83.0% 81.3% 81.3% 82.2% 1.00 to 1.49 12.6% 12.6% 12.8% 14.1% 13.2% 13.0% 1.5 to 1.99 2.0% 2.9% 0.9% 3.6% 3.1% 2.4% 2.00 or more 2.3% 2.3% 3.3% 0.9% 2.5% 2.4% HH THAT ARE CROWDED, DOUBLED UP, OR BOTH Either or Both 14.2% 20.2% 17.5% 14.2% 18.0% 17.5% Neither 1 85.8% 79.8% 82.5% 85.8% 82.0% 82.5% HIDDEN HOMELESS AND AT RISK OF HOMELESSNESS At Risk for Homelessness 33.5% 36.9% 36.4% 37.1% 43.3% 38.0% Hidden Homeless 3.6% 15.4% 10.8% 10.9% 9.0% 11.0% Has Adequate Housing 62.9% 47.8% 52.8% 52.0% 47.7% 51.0% Source: Housing Demand Survey, 2011 Table B-5. Interest in Moving, Districts and County of Hawai'i, 2011 South North & County Kona to South North North of Ka'u Puna Hilo Hawai'i Kona Hawai'i TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS 5,375 16,956 18,156 10,458 15,166 66,111 WANT TO MOVE Yes 21.3% 33.0% 31.9% 29.6% 42.2% 33.3% No or Not Sure 78.7% 67.0% 68.1% 70.4% 57.8% 66.7% FINAL DEMAND MOVERS 1,178 5,468 5,667 3,028 6,428 21,770 SOONEST WILL MOVE Within 1 Year 18.5% 21.0% 29.8% 30.4% 29.6% 27.0% 1 to 2 Years 19.6% 16.0% 14.5% 25.4% 18.9% 18.0% 3 to 5 Years 23.0% 34.2% 30.1% 21.4% 29.9% 29.5% MoreThan 5 Years 38.9% 28.7% 25.6% 22.8% 21.6% 25.5% PLANNED NEXT LOCATION Moving In Hawaii or Not Sure 80.4% 84.4% 84.3% 76.0% 69.0% 78.5% Moving Out-of-State 19.6% 15.6% 15.7% 24.0% 31.0% 21.5% EFFECTIVE DEMAND MOVERS 1 947 1 4,617 1 4,776 1 2,302 1 4,437 1 17,080 *Effective Demand movers are those who will move at some point in the future, have an idea about the time frame of their move, and will move within the State of Hawai'i. Source: Housing Demand Survey, 2011 Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 92 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 Table B-6. Preferred Next Tenancy, Districts and County of Hawaii, 2011 South North & County Kona to South North North of Ka'u Puna Hilo Hawai'i Kona Hawai'i EFFECTIVE DEMAND MOVERS 947 4,617 4,776 2,302 4,437 17,080 PREFERRED NEXT TENANCY Prefer to Buy 32.1% 61.3% 67.6% 42.6% 55.2% 44.4% Prefer to Rent or Other 67.9% 38.7% 32.4% 57.4% 44.8% 55.6% CERTAIN TO BUY Certain to Buy 69.8% 79.0% 93.2% 74.6% 72.4% 75.8% Might Have To Rent 22.4% 10.3% 6.8% 21.7% 19.0% 16.4% Not Sure 7.8% 10.6% 3.7% 8.6% 7.8% WOULD BUY IF AFFORDABLE Yes 74.7% 52.5% 23.0% 75.0% 95.1% 70.4% No 22.9% 32.3% 77.0% 25.0% 4.9% 25.3% Not Sure 2.4% 15.2% 4.3% Base for Preferred Next Tenancy is all effective demand households. Base for Certain to Buy is all effective demand households that prefer to purchase their next home. Base for Would Buy If Affordable is all effective demand households that prefer to rent their next home. Source: Housing Demand Survey, 2011 Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 93 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 Table B-7. Preferred and Acceptable Next Unit Characteristics - Buyers, Districts and County of Hawaii, 2011 South North & Kona to South North North County of Ka'u Puna Hilo Hawai'i Kona Hawai'i TOTAL BUYER HOUSEHOLDS 577 2,339 2,149 946 2,489 8,499 PREFERRED UNIT TYPE Single family home 72.4% 87.9% 90.1% 91.6% 84.4% 86.9% Townhouse 15.2% 3.5% 4.6% 3.6% 4.1% Condo 3.7% 6.1% 5.3% 4.2% 8.1% 6.1% Other 6.3% 2.0% 1.0% Not Sure 2.3% 4.2% 2.0% 1.9% PREFERRED NUMBER OF BEDROOMS Studio or One 4.6% 14.2% 1.8% 15.3% 3.8% 7.4% Two 37.2% 37.5% 17.4% 41.9% 29.2% 30.5% Three 42.1% 26.9% 49.4% 17.8% 36.2% 35.3% Four plus 16.1% 21.4% 31.4% 25.1% 27.1% 25.7% PREFERRED NUMBER OF BATHROOMS 1 bathroom 12.0% 7.0% 10.5% 2.6% 5.3% 7.2% 2 bathrooms 7.0% 11.6% 6.5% 10.1% 8.6% 3 bathrooms 51.0% 56.2% 46.6% 57.9% 35.2% 47.4% 4+ bathrooms 37.0% 29.8% 31.4% 33.0% 49.5% 36.8% NEED FOR SPECIAL HOUSING MODIFICATIONS Railings 1.8% 2.0% 1.0% Wheelchair modifications 2.3% 1.7% 0.6% Bathroom grab bars 1.7% 5.6% 2.2% 2.5% 5.7% 4.2% Shower seat 1.0% 3.8% 1.4% Emergency call device 5.3% 10.1% 17.5% 25.8% 11.3% 13.8% None of these 80.8% 82.0% 76.7% 71.7% 77.3% 78.0% Not Reported 9.8% 1.3% 1.0% MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE BEDROOMS One Bedroom 23.4% 27.1% 19.4% 23.4% 12.9% 20.3% Two Bedrooms 36.4% 44.7% 42.9% 57.8% 43.3% 44.7% Three Bedrooms 38.1% 27.2% 32.7% 14.1% 35.7% 30.4% Four Plus Bedrooms 2.1% 1.0% 5.0% 4.7% 8.1% 4.6% MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE BATHROOMS One 38.6% 39.1% 48.7% 54.9% 30.8% 40.8% One and one-half 12.8% 15.1% 11.4% 4.3% 2.1% 8.9% Two 44.3% 45.8% 34.3% 35.9% 53.4% 44.0% Two and one-half 3.8% 13.7% 5.1% Three 4.3% 1.7% 4.9% 1.2% MINIMUM SQ.FT. REQUIRED Less than 1,000 sqft 29.3% 31.5% 24.7% 20.1% 17.7% 24.3% 1,000 to 1,499 sqft 44.4% 49.7% 52.1% 50.7% 40.2% 47.3% 1,500 to 1,999 sqft 12.7% 11.0% 3.8% 16.5% 18.2% 12.0% 2,000+ sqft 13.6% 4.4% 7.0% 12.7% 17.7% 10.5% Not Sure 1 1 3.4% 1 12.4% 1 1 6.2% 1 5.9% Source: Housing Demand Survey, 2011 Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 94 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 Table B-8. Preferred and Acceptable Next Unit Characteristics - Renters, Districts and County of Hawai'i, 2011 South North & County Kona to South North North of Ka'u Puna Hilo Hawai'i Kona Hawai'i TOTAL RENTER HOUSEHOLDS 147 1,486 2,128 1,018 1,395 6,174 PREFERRED UNIT TYPE Single family home 88.1% 79.3% 66.8% 71.9% 77.5% 73.5% Townhouse 2.2% 9.8% 4.8% 5.0% Condo 2.7% 2.0% 9.0% 2.9% Apartment 11.9% 11.5% 16.9% 7.5% 7.2% 11.8% Other 4.2% 2.2% 1.8% Not Sure 2.2% 11.6% 10.5% 5.0% PREFERRED NUMBER OF BEDROOMS Studio or One 20.3% 7.7% 10.5% 8.9% 6.9% Two 17.8% 40.5% 47.3% 30.6% 27.1% 37.6% Three 20.1% 42.6% 32.6% 32.6% 33.6% 34.9% Four plus 41.8% 16.9% 12.4% 26.3% 30.4% 20.6% PREFERRED NUMBER OF BATHROOMS 1 bathroom 11.6% 14.4% 32.0% 18.0% 24.0% 22.4% 2 bathrooms 3.9% 8.5% 11.3% 12.9% 5.7% 9.3% 3 bathrooms 66.1% 53.0% 48.8% 55.6% 34.9% 48.8% 4+ bathrooms 18.4% 24.0% 8.0% 13.6% 35.4% 19.5% NEED FOR SPECIAL HOUSING MODIFICATIONS Ramps 2.0% 1.6% 8.3% 2.8% Railings 1.4% 13.1% 4.5% Wheelchair modifications 3.9% 1.8% 4.1% 4.2% 2.8% Bathroom grab bars 9.0% 6.0% 5.2% 7.0% 4.8% Shower seat 1.9% 2.0% 3.0% 2.8% 2.2% Emergency call device 36.8% 6.4% 18.8% 16.9% 3.0% 12.5% None of these 50.3% 80.4% 55.1% 73.1% 81.8% 70.4% MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE BEDROOMS One 11.9% 36.3% 40.7% 45.2% 19.9% 35.0% Two 72.3% 43.1% 43.8% 29.7% 54.1% 44.3% Three 15.8% 17.6% 11.3% 22.3% 8.4% 14.1% Four 2.9% 4.2% 2.8% 17.7% 6.6% MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE BATHROOMS One 47.7% 54.4% 57.6% 56.3% 57.8% 56.0% One and one-half 25.4% 8.0% 2.8% 12.3% 6.5% Two 26.9% 27.2% 33.4% 28.7% 33.9% 30.5% Two and one-half 2.7% 0.5% Three 10.4% 3.2% Three and one-half 8.2% 1.7% Don't know 6.1% 1.7% MINIMUM SQ.FT. REQUIRED Less than 1,000 sqft 28.4% 25.8% 35.4% 40.5% 33.1% 32.8% 1,000 to 1,499 sgft 42.2% 52.7% 29.7% 29.7% 25.8% 35.7% 1,500 to 1,999 sqft 21.1% 8.9% 10.2% 5.1% 4.0% 8.1% 2,000+ sqft 7.5% 2.0% 16.0% 5.7% Not Sure 1 8.3% 1 5.1% 1 24.7% 1 22.8% 1 21.1% 1 17.6% Source: Housing Demand Survey, 2011 Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 95 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 Table B-9. Preferred Location of Next Unit-Buyers and Renters, Districts and County of Hawaii, 2011 South Kona North & North North County of to Ka'u Puna South Hilo Hawai'i Kona Hawai'i PREFERRED LOCATION OF NEXT UNIT - BUYERS PUC 5.2% 10.5% 4.1% East Honolulu 3.0% 0.9% Leeward O'ahu 3.7% 7.9% 2.2% Windward O'ahu 5.1% 1.2% South Kona-Kau 7.0% 1.7% 4.5% 1.6% Puna 8.8% 39.0% 6.1% 13.9% North & South Hilo 17.8% 21.3% 59.8% 23.8% North Hawai'i 4.8% 7.7% 10.8% 61.6% 12.9% North Kona 35.4% 1.8% 7.2% 57.4% 17.5% Hana 6.3% 1.5% Makawao-P ukalani-Kula 2.5% 0.7% Paia-Haiku 2.6% 0.8% West Maui 6.4% 1.9% Waimea (BI) 6.6% 4.6% 26.7% 5.4% 6.2% Koloa 6.2% 0.5% Lihue 8.3% 2.5% Kawaihau 7.4% 1.8% O'ahu, any 3.0% 3.6% 1.9% Hawai'i Island any 9.7% 1.8% 10.7% 4.1% Total 94.4% 190.7% 88.8% 88.7% 69.8% 841% No Preference 5.6% 9.3% 11.2% 11.3% 302% 15.9% Total Final Demand Buyers 577 2,339 2,149 946 2,489 8,499 PREFERRED LOCATION OF NEXT UNIT -RENTERS PUC 4.6% 13.8% 5.6% Central0'ahu 41.3% 2.3% 7.4% 2.6% East Honolulu 12.9% 3.0% Leeward O'ahu 2.2% 0.6% Windward O'ahu 1.8% 5.7% 1.6% Puna 38.9% 7.5% 12.6% North & South Hilo 26.9% 56.3% 7.0% 26.1% North Hawai'i 2.5% 5.4% 36.1% 3.9% 9.5% North Kona 45.7% 14.8% 4.9% 10.8% 60.7% 22.1% Waimea (BI) 1.6% 2.6% 7.9% 10.5% 5.0% O'ahu, any 2.2% 5.4% 2.3% Maui, any 5.1% 1.2% Kaua'i any 2.2% 0.7% Hawai'i Island any 13.0% 3.9% 24.8% 6.9% 7.1% Total 62.9% 95.8% 802% 91.4% 891% 87.4% No Preference 37.1% 4.2% 19.8% 8.6% 10.9% 12.6% Total Final Demand Renters 147 1,486 2,128 1,018 1,395 6,174 Note. Base for percentages in each area is the number of effective demand movers with a preference. Source: Housing Demand Survey, 2011 Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 96 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 Table B-10. Current and Affordable Housing Costs -Buyers and Renters, Districts and County of Hawai'i, 2011 South North & Kona to South North County of Ka'u Puna Hilo Hawai'i North Kona Hawai'i AVERAGE CURRENT MORTGAGE AMOUNT Single Family Unit $764 $856 $914 $1,481 $1,774 $1,131 Multi-Family Unit $604 $2,500 $853 $1,464 $1,704 $1,409 All Units 1 $758 $864 $911 $1,480 $1,766 $1,145 AVERAGE CURRENT RENT AMOUNT Two-Bedroom Unit $728 $1,109 $1,002 $1,175 $1,269 $1,119 All Units 1 $865 $926 $828 $1,022 $1,143 $994 AFFORDABLE MORTGAGE PAYMENT Less than $200 5.9% 0.7% 5.5% 4.7% 2.6% $200 to $499 3.4% 13.6% 4.7% $500 to $799 7.7% 11.0% 9.2% 8.9% 3.6% 8.0% $800 to $1,099 15.0% 26.8% 8.5% 15.1% 8.8% 14.8% $1,100to $1,399 6.9% 5.8% 11.1% 15.3% 8.7% 9.4% $1,400 to $1,699 5.3% 8.7% 13.9% 7.7% 11.7% 10.6% $1,700 to $1,999 2.0% 1.2% 7.8% 10.9% 4.9% $2,000 to $2,999 6.3% 11.3% 13.0% 14.7% 25.2% 15.7% $3,000 to $3,999 8.1% 1.5% 8.0% 17.3% 7.7% $4,000 or More 11.9% 2.4% 7.4% 8.7% 10.9% 7.4% Not Sure 32.9% 26.5% 8.5% 17.2% 2.7% 14.2% Average Affordable lWortgage $1,913 $1,376 $1,611 $1,662 $2,337 $1,797 AFFORDABLE RENT PAYMENT less than $200 6.5% 6.3% 2.2% 4.1% $200 to $499 11.9% 13.2% 22.4% 11.3% $500 to $799 9.4% 11.4% 23.2% 12.2% 7.0% 14.7% $800 to $1,099 14.7% 31.8% 12.4% 22.9% 34.0% 23.6% $1,100to $1,399 20.1% 14.1% 3.5% 28.0% 3.5% 10.6% $1,400 to $1,699 9.3% 9.8% 3.6% 11.4% 8.8% $1,700 to $1,999 8.8% 19.3% 6.3% $2,000 to $2,499 7.8% 5.4% 22.1% 8.4% $2,500 to $2,999 4.8% 1.0% $3,000 or more 26.0% 1.7% 12.2% 3.9% Not Sure 17.8% 13.8% 4.0% 6.4% 5.0% 7.3% Average Affordable Rent 1 $1,707 1 $867 1 $989 1 $1,263 1 $1,732 1 $1,187 Note. Base for Average Current Mortgage is current owners who specified the amount of their current monthly mortgage payment. Base for Average Current Rent is current renters who specified the amountof their current monthlyrent payment. Base for Affordable Mortgage Payment is effective demand movers who plan to purchase their next home. Base for Affordable Rent Payment is effective demand movers who plan to rent their next home. Source: Housing Demand Survey, 2011 Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 97 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 Table B-11. Financial Qualification for Purchase, Districts and County of Hawaii, 2011 South Kona to North & North North County of Ka'u Puna South Hilo Hawai'i Kona Hawai'i TOTAL BUYER HOUSEHOLDS 14,814 14,720 3,231 4,439 3,232 40,437 AMOUNT IN SAVINGS Less Than $1,000 19.8% 21.5% 25.6% 13.1% 12.1% 18.9% $1,000 to $4,999 8.2% 16.6% 7.4% 9.1% 11.7% 11.4% $5,000 to $7,499 3.3% 5.1% 13.6% 6.8% 9.2% 8.5% $7,500 to $9,999 4.6% 1.3% $10,000 to $14,999 6.5% 1.5% 14.5% 4.7% 3.8% $15,000 to $17,499 4.8% 1.3% $20,000 or More 14.5% 16.4% 14.8% 27.8% 42.0% 24.4% Not Sure 47.7% 31.1% 37.1% 28.7% 20.4% 30.5% Average Amount in Savings $10,236 $9,585 $8,656 $14,329 $16,476 $12,281 AMOUNT FOR DOWN PAYMENT None 4.9% 6.4% 12.1% 3.8% 7.5% 7.8% less than $5,000 12.4% 9.5% 12.9% 10.4% 9.7% $5,000 to$14,999 19.00% 21.70% 1740% 3.70% 15.70% 16.6% $15,000 to $24,999 8.2% 17.9% 13.9% 25.9% 8.7% 14.5% $25,000 to $39,999 5.8% 10.9% 6.3% 5.1% $40,000 to $59,999 6.9% 2.7% 4.9% 14.9% 4.8% 5.5% $60,000 to $99,999 1.0% 5.2% 1.8% $100,000 or more 26.1% 7.9% 1.8% 23.0% 26.9% 14.8% Not Sure 22.5% 27.2% 26.2% 22.4% 20.9% 24.2% Average Amount for Down Payment $59,679 $29,765 $18,098 $63,843 $63,659 $41,987 OWN OTHER INVESTMENT PROPERTY Yes 60.8% 7.6% 38.6% 22.6% 50.7% 32.6% No 39.2% 1 92.4% 1 61.4% 1 77.4% 1 49.3% 1 67.4% Source: Housing Demand Survey, 2011 Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 98 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 APPENDIX C: DETAILED DATA WORKSHEETS Table C-1. Home Ownership Rates, 1990-2011 State of County County County County i i of Honolulu of Hawaii i of Kauai 1990 53.9 52.6 61.1 57.5 58.6 1992 54.5 52.7 61.4 57.4 59.7 1997 56.1 54.2 63.8 57.4 61.2 1999 56.4 54.5 64.2 57.4 61.3 2000 56.5 54.6 64.5 57.4 61.4 2003 57.2 54.9 66.1 58.3 62.0 2004 59.0 57.2 66.9 58.5 62.9 2005 59.4 57.6 67.2 58.6 64.0 2006 59.0 57.2 66.9 58.5 62.9 2011 1 57.7 1 56.1 1 66.0 1 55.8 1 60.1 Sources: U.S. Census 1990 and 2000; HHPS Housing Demand Survey, 1992, 1997, 2003, 2006 and 2011, Honolulu 2003, 2004, and 2005,ACS; Hawaii and Maui Counties 2005,ACS;All others are SMS estimates. Table C-2 .Vacancy Rates, by State: 1986 to 2010 Rental Rate Homeowner Rate U.S. Hawai-i U.S. Hawaii 1986 7.7 5.7 1.6 0.8 1987 7.7 6.5 1.7 1.1 1988 7.7 6.3 1.6 0.4 1989 7.4 6.6 1.8 1.0 1990 7.2 6.6 1.7 0.8 1991 7.4 5.8 1.7 1.4 1992 7.4 5.8 1.5 2.5 1993 7.3 6.8 1.4 3.0 1994 7.4 7.4 1.5 2.0 1995 7.6 6.3 1.5 2.0 1996 7.8 6.0 1.6 1.4 1997 7.7 7.1 1.6 1.6 1998 7.9 6.9 1.7 1.3 1999 8.1 7.6 1.7 1.8 2000 8.0 5.3 1.6 0.9 2001 8.4 8.2 1.8 0.8 2002 8.9 7.3 1.7 0.9 2003 9.8 8.9 1.8 1.2 2004 10.2 9.7 1.7 1.3 2005 9.8 5.1 1.9 0.6 2006 9.7 5.5 2.4 1.0 2007 9.7 6.3 2.7 1.7 2008 10.0 7.2 2.8 1.7 2009 10.6 9.2 2.6 1.9 2010 10.2 8.1 2.6 1.9 Source: Homeownership and Vacancy Rate Survey, 1986-2010 Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 99 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 APPENDIX D: LAND USE REGULATION INDEX Table D-1. Wharton Residential Land Use Regulation Index by State Rank State Index Value Observations 1 Hawaii 2.32 1 2 Rhode Island 1.58 17 3 Massachusetts 1.56 79 4 New Hampshire 1.36 32 5 New Jersey 0.88 104 6 Maryland 0.79 18 7 Washington 0.74 49 8 Maine 0.68 44 9 California 0.59 182 10 Arizona 0.58 40 11 Colorado 0.48 48 12 Delaware 0.48 5 13 Connecticut 0.38 65 14 Pennsylvania 0.37 182 15 Florida 0.37 987 16 Vermont 0.35 24 17 Minnesota 0.08 80 18 Oregon 0.08 42 19 Wisconsin 0.07 93 20 Michigan 0.02 111 21 New York -0.01 93 22 Utah -0.07 41 23 New Mexico -0.11 16 24 Illinois -0.19 139 25 Virginia -0.19 35 26 Georgia -0.21 56 27 North Carolina -0.35 64 28 Montana -0.36 6 29 Ohio -0.36 135 30 Texas -0.45 165 31 Nevada -0.45 7 32 Wyoming -0.45 7 33 North Dakota -0.54 8 34 Kentucky -0.57 28 35 Idaho -0.63 19 36 Tennessee -0.68 41 37 Nebraska -0.68 22 38 Oklahoma -0.70 36 39 South Carolina -0.76 30 40 Mississippi -0.82 21 41 Arkansas -0.86 23 42 West Virginia -0.90 15 43 Alabama -0.94 37 44 Iowa -0.99 59 45 Indiana -1.01 47 46 Missouri -1.03 67 47 South Dakota -1.04 11 48 Louisiana -1.06 19 49 Alaska -1.07 7 50 Kansas -1.13 46 Source: Gyourko, Joseph, Albert Saiz, and Anita A. Summers, 2007. A New Measure of the Local Regulatory Environment for Housing Markets: The Wharton Residential Land Use Regulatory Index. The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Final Version: March 29, 2007. Note. Observations are the number of individual respondents (state or county agencies, university offices, Realtor groups, etc.)that offered evidence for specific housing markets in each state. Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 100 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 APPENDIX E: SPECIAL NEEDS HOUSING Table E-1. Special Needs Population and Housing Summary, City & County of Honolulu, 2011 Affordable HH In Need of Unmet Total SN Pop. %of Total Housing Supportive Housing Special Needs Population Count Population Inventory Housing Need Eldedl y 169,361 17.8% 4603 Frail eldedy 5,281 0.6% Exiting offender 1,376 0.1% Personswith alcohol orotherdrugaddictions 98,848 10.4% Persons with disabilities 87,950 9.2% Persons with developmental disabilities 1,700 0.2% Persons with HIMAIDS 1,624 0.2% Persons with severe mental illness 47,660 5.0% 144 Vctimsofdomesticviolence unknown unknown Youth exiting fostercarel 128 <0.1% Table E-2. Special Needs Population and Housing Summary, County of Hawal'i, 2011 Affordable HH In Need of Unmet Total SN %of Total Housing Supportive Housing Special Needs Population Pop.Count Population Inventory Housing Need Elderly 34,368 18.6% 651 Frail elderly 1,674 0.9% Exiting offenders 267 0.1% Persons with alcohol or other drug addictions 17,749 9.6% Persons with disabilities 22,004 11.9% Persons with developmental disabilities 330 0.2% Persons with HIV/AIDS 315 0.2% Persons with severe mental illness 9,254 5.0% 46 Vctmsofdomestcvalence 1,078 0.6% Youth exiting foster care 20 <0.1% Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 101 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 Table E-3. Special Needs Population and Housing Summary, County of Maui, 2011 Affordable HH In Need of Unmet Total SN Pop. %of Total Housing Supportive Housing Special Needs Population Count Population Inventory Housing Need Eldedy 25,328 16.4% 684 Frail eldedy 1,021 0.7% Exit ng offenders 223 0.1% Persons with al cohol or other drug addictions 12,108 7.8% Persons with disabilities 13,186 8.50/c Persons with developmental disabilities 276 0.2% Persons withHIMAIDS 264 0.2% Persons with severe mental illness 7,742 5.0% 53 Victims of domestic violence unknown unknown Youthexiting foster care 17 <0.1% Table E-4. Special Needs Population and Housing Summary, County of Kauai, 2011 Affordable HH In Need of Unmet Total SN %of Total Housing Supportive Housing Special Needs Population Pop.Count Population Inventory Housing Need Elderly 12,594 18.8% 246 Frail elderly 725 1.1% Exiting offenders 97 0.1% Persons with alcohol or other drug addictions 5,884 8.8% Persons with disabilities 7,295 10.9% Persons with developmental disabilities 120 0.2% Personswith HIV/AIDS 115 0.2% Persons with severe mental illness 3,355 5.0% 41 Victims ofdomestcviolence unknown unknown Youth exit ng foster care 7 <0.1% Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 102 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 Table E-5a. AMHD Statewide Current and Planned Housing Inventory, 2004.2012 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total 24-Hour Group Homes Oahu 36 53 68 75 24 16 32 24 16 344 Maui 0 8 0 8 16 0 8 8 0 48 Hawaii 24 0 24 8 24 16 8 8 8 120 Kauai 0 10 0 0 8 8 8 0 0 34 Total 60 71 92 91 72 40 56 40 24 546 8-16 Hour Group Homes Oahu 57 24 14 44 32 16 32 16 16 251 Maui 5 6 0 8 18 8 0 8 8 61 Hawaii 16 0 20 8 16 8 8 8 8 92 Kauai 4 0 5 0 9 0 8 0 0 26 Total 82 30 39 60 75 32 48 32 32 430 Semi-Independent Living Oahu 55 72 5 0 0 0 5 0 5 142 Maui 21 0 -5 0 0 5 0 5 0 26 Hawaii 30 0 5 5 5 0 0 0 5 50 Kauai 18 -4 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 19 Total 124 68 5 5 5 5 5 10 10 237 Licensed TLP Oahu 0 0 0 0 40 0 5 0 0 45 Maui 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 8 Hawaii 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 5 0 21 Kauai 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 5 Total 0 0 0 0 40 24 10 5 0 79 Licensed Specialized Residential Oahu 37 -15 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 38 Maui 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hawaii 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kauai 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 37 -15 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 38 Licensed Specialized Residential (Dual) Oahu 69 0 8 0 5 0 5 0 5 92 Maui 0 4 4 0 0 0 5 0 5 18 Hawaii 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 16 Kauai 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 69 4 12 0 5 16 10 0 10 126 Licensed Crisis Residential Oahu 19 -3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 Maui 8 -4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 Hawaii 5 4 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 17 Kauai 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 5 Total 32 -3 4 8 5 0 0 0 0 46 Safe Haven (Homeless) Oahu 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 Maui 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 12 Hawaii 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kauai 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 5 Total 1 25 1 0 1 0 0 1 12 1 0 1 5 1 0 1 0 42 Hawaii Housing Planning Study, 2011 Page 103 0 SMS, Inc. November, 2011 Table E-5b. AMHD Statewide Current and Planned Housing Inventory, 2004-2012 (continued) 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total Supported Housing 1 Bridge Subsidy Oahu 185 0 0 0 0 50 0 50 0 285 Maui 50 0 0 0 0 40 0 25 0 115 Hawaii 70 0 0 0 0 40 0 30 0 140 Kauai 27 0 0 0 0 10 0 5 0 42 Total 332 0 0 0 0 140 0 110 0 582 Consumers Moved from Bridge to Section 8 8 Oahu 67 26 50 45 35 25 25 25 25 323 Maui 13 15 8 20 20 30 18 15 10 149 Hawaii 5 12 7 25 25 25 15 10 10 134 Kauai 5 2 3 15 10 15 10 8 7 75 Total 90 55 68 105 90 95 68 58 52 681 Shelter Plus Care to Rental Subsidies(Homeless) Oahu 85 144 12 0 0 14 20 20 25 320 Maui 0 0 18 0 0 0 12 0 14 44 Hawaii 0 24 10 14 0 18 0 14 12 92 Kauai 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 20 Total 85 168 40 1 24 0 32 32 44 51 476 Consumers Moved from Shelter Plus Care to Section 8 Oahu 0 15 20 35 25 25 20 25 20 185 Maui 0 0 1 1 8 10 10 12 10 52 Hawaii 0 0 7 7 15 15 15 15 10 84 Kauai 0 0 0 0 3 3 5 3 5 19 Total 0 15 28 43 51 53 50 55 45 340 Office of Social Ministry in partnership with HPHA and AMHD Beyond Shelter Apts. 0 0 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 Kihei Pua 0 0 72 0 0 0 0 0 0 72 Ponahawaiola Apts. 0 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 Total 0 0 141 0 0 0 0 0 0 141 Total Housing Capacity-Yea Total Housing 936 393 429 336 1 371 437 284 354 224 3,764 Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 104 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 APPENDIX F: GLOSSARY At-Risk (Precariously Housed): Households in which members would become homeless in less than three months if they suddenly lost their primary source of income. Also called "precariously housed," these people are three monthly paychecks away from homelessness. Hidden Homeless: Households in which more than one family share accommodations. These households include families that are doubled up (two or more families or groups of persons who are related by birth, marriage or adoption) and those that are sharing (two or more families or groups whose members are not related by birth, marriage, or adoption). Adequately Housed: Households that are not classified as at-risk or hidden homeless. 50% Hawaiian: An individual is 50 percent Hawaiian if they claimed that status in the Housing Demand Survey. Only Respondents were asked to self-report ethnic status. A household is classified as 50 percent Hawaiian if the household includes at least one adult member who is 50 percent or more Hawaiian. Respondents were asked if there were other members of the household who were 50 percent or more Hawaiian. 50 percent Hawaiian households may or may not be DHHL beneficiaries (lessees or applicants). ADLs: Activities of Daily Living, which include assistance with eating, bathing, getting dressed, getting in or out of bed, or getting to the toilet. Acceptable Bathrooms: The number of bathrooms that are absolutely required in a new unit. Typically, an acceptable bathroom is a more accurate measure of housing characteristic for planning than first-choice preferred bedrooms. Acceptable Bedrooms: The number of bedrooms that are absolutely required in a new unit. Typically, an acceptable bedroom is a more accurate measure of housing characteristic for planning than first-choice preferred bedrooms. Affordable Housing: refers to the generalized concept of housing that residents have sufficient income and financial resources to be able to purchase or rent. In the U.S., commonly accepted guideline for housing affordability is a housing cost that does not exceed 30% of a household's gross income. Housing costs considered in this guideline generally include taxes and insurance for owners, and usually include utility costs. When the monthly carrying costs of a home exceed 30-35 percent of household income, then the housing is considered unaffordable for that household. Affordable Housing Cost: The average dollar amount that a respondent reported they would be able to pay per month for a new housing unit. Annual Periods: Data reported for more than one year in this report (e.g., 2003-2006 or 2007-2010) are inclusive of both years. That is, "2003-2006" means from January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2006 and includes both end dates. If disaggregated data were based on Census estimates [see also Years], the original figures are annual estimates centered on July 1 but those estimates include all cases that occurred from January 1 through December 31 in the disaggregated data. Applicant Only: Households in which at least one adult member has applied for, but has not yet been awarded, land from the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands. Hawaii Housing Planning Study, 2011 Page 105 ©SMS, Inc. November, 2011 At Risk for Homelessness: Households in which members would become homeless is less than three months if they suddenly lost their primary source of income. Also called "precariously housed," these people are three monthly paychecks away from homelessness. Available Down Payment: The amount of money available to be used as a cash down payment for new housing. Churn Rate: For any given period of time, the number of participants who discontinue their use of a service divided by the average number of total participants. Churn rate provides insight into the growth or decline of the subscriber base, as well as the average length of participation in the service. COL %: Represents the percentage of the column total for an individual cell in a table [Also referred to as Count Percent or vertical percent]. Contract Type: Refers to the two major ownership contracts: leasehold and fee simple. Count Percent: [See Col %]. Crowding Ratio: The average number of household members per bedroom per household. Crowding Ratio by Bedrooms: Number of persons per bedroom. Does not include any rooms other than bedrooms. Households with more than 1.01 persons per bedroom are considered overcrowded [See also Overcrowded]. Crowding Ratio by Rooms: Number of persons per room. Includes all rooms other than closets, hallways, utility rooms, foyers, and lanais. DHHL: Department of Hawaiian Home Lands. This state agency has been responsible for administering the land trust that in 1921 established about 200,000 acres of land for homesteading by Native Hawaiians. For more information visit: http://www.Hawai'i.gov/dhhl/. Doubled-up: A single household that includes more than one family group, either members of two or more different generations (e.g., a parental family group and the family of one of their children), or of the same generation (two family groups headed by siblings or cousins). Doubled-up households may also include other either related to or unrelated to the family groups. Elderly: A person 60, 62 or 65 years of age or older. Elderly Alone: Single member households, member is 62 years of age or older. Elderly Couple: Two-member households, male and female, at least one or which is 62 years of age or older. Emancipated foster youth: Youth who are aging out of the foster care system. Exiting offender: Inmates released from the prison system. Family: Two or more persons, related by birth, marriage, or adoptions, residing in a single housing unit. Family Group: Two or more persons, related by birth, marriage or adoption, who may be sharing a housing units with other persons either related or unrelated. Hawaii Housing Planning Study, 2011 Page 106 ©SMS, Inc. November, 2011 Fee Simple: A fee simple estate is the least limited and the most complete and absolute ownership in land. It is of indefinite duration, freely transferable and inheritable. The phrase "fee simple absolute" came about because the estate is of potentially infinite duration (thus "fee"); there is no limitation on its inheritability (thus simple); and it is indefeasible 69 and cannot be divested (thus absolute). Frail elderly: Elderly afflicted with physical or mental disabilities that may interfere with the ability to perform activities of daily living independently (i.e., bathing, dressing, toileting, and meal preparation). Guamanian or Chamorro: Ethnicity of persons from Guam or the Mariana Islands region. HH: Household, person residing in a housing unit for five or more months of the year. Hidden Homeless: Households in which more than one family or family groups share a housing unit. Hidden homeless households include those that are doubled-up, households that consist of two or more unrelated family groups, and households in which a family group shares accommodations with other unrelated household members. Homestead Land: Land entrusted by the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act for homesteading by Native Hawaiians. This trust is current administered by the Department of Hawaiian Homelands Honolulu PUC: Honolulu Primary Urban Center, census tracts 4.01 thru 72, 75.02, and 75.06. For information on Census Tracts visit: http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html? Iang=en HUD: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. HUD's mission is to increase home ownership, support community development, and increase access to affordable housing free from discrimination. To fulfill this mission, HUD will embrace high standards of ethics, management and accountability and forge new partnerships -- particularly with faith-based and community organizations that leverage resources and improve HUD's ability to be effective on the community level. For more information visit: hftp://www.hud.gov/ HUD Income Guidelines: [See HUD Income Limits] HUD Income Limits: Calculates income as percentage of the HUD median income for a household of a given size in a given geographic area. For information on the HUD median income and HUD income limits visit: hftp://www.huduser.org/datasets/il/i106/BRIEFING-MATERIALs.pdf HUD Median Income: The median income for a household of a given size in a specific geographic area. For detailed information on the HUD median income and HUD income limits visit: hftp://www.huduser.or_q/datasets/il/i106/BRIEFING-MATERIALs.pd IADLs: Instrumental Activities for Daily Living which include preparing meals, taking medications, making phone calls or managing money. Imputation: A method of replacing missing values for specific variables in survey work. SMS uses a multivariate regression technique to replace missing values with the best estimate of the value for each case, based on reported values of several other related variables. For the Housing Demand Survey, imputation was applied to age and household income. 69 Indefeasible: cannot be altered orvoided, usually in reference to an interest in real property. Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 107 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 Income: Self-reported household income from all sources, for all employed [persons in the households, estimated before taxes, for the calendar year preceding the survey (2010). [See also Imputation.] Income as a % of HUD Median: [See HUD Income Limits]. Income Per Household Member: Household income divided by the number of persons living in the household. Intention to Move: The desire to seek a new housing unit at some time in the future. Includes the desire to seek a new ownership units and the desire to seek a new rental unit. Leasehold: A less than freehold estate by which a tenant possesses real property. In a lease situation, the tenant possesses a leasehold and the landlord possesses the reversion estate; i.e. when the lease terminates, the property will revert to the landlord. Lessee and Applicant: A classification of households used in the Native Hawaiian tabulations and reports referring to a households in which at least one member is a DHHL lessee and at least one is an applicant for a land award from DHHL. Lessee Only: A households occupied by virtue of a Department of Hawaiian Home Lands lease, and having no adult member who is on a DHHL awards applicant list. MFD: Multi-Family Dwelling. This includes townhouses, apartments, duplexes, and multiplexes. Multi-Generation Household With Elderly Member: Households with at least two generations present and at least one member 62 years of age or older. Non-Hawaiian: A non-Hawaiian individual is a person that reports no Hawaiian ancestry. Oahu SF Ads: The number of advertisements for single-family homes in the City & County of Honolulu. Oahu SF Rents: The number of advertisements for single-family homes for rent in the City & County of Honolulu. Occupy without Payment: A type of tenancy in which the respondent occupies a housing units without payment of cash rent. Includes persons living in rent-free public units, those living in private sector, family-owned units, property managers occupying units in exchange for services, clerics living in church owner units, military dependents in on-base units, etc. Does not include individuals who have paid off their mortgage. Other Hawaiian: Other Hawaiian individuals are those who claimed some Hawaiian ethnicity in the survey, but were not 50 percent or more Hawaiian, and therefore were not DHHL beneficiaries. Other Hawaiian households are households that include no individual with more than 50 percent Hawaiian ancestry, and include at least one individual who is less than 50 percent Hawaiian. Overcrowded: A household with more than 1.01 persons per room. Persons with alcohol or other drug addictions: Persons whose impairment or disability is due to alcoholism or drug addiction. Hawaii Housing Planning Study, 2011 Page 108 ©SMS, Inc. November, 2011 Persons with developmental disability: Persons with a severe, chronic disability that: (1) is attributable to a mental or physical impairment or combination of mental and physical impairments; (2) is manifested before the individual attains age 22; (3) is likely to continue indefinitely; (4) results in substantial functional limitations in three or more of the following areas of major life activity: self- care; receptive and expressive language; learning; mobility; self-direction; capacity for independent living; economic self-sufficiency; and (5) reflects the individual's need for a combination and sequence of special interdisciplinary, or generic services, individualized supports, or other forms of assistance that are of lifelong or extended duration and are individually planned and coordinated. An individual from birth to age nine, inclusive, who has a substantial developmental delay or specific congenital or acquired condition, may be considered to have a developmental disability without meeting three or more of the criteria described above, if the individual, without services and supports, has a high probability of meeting those criteria later in life. Persons with disabilities: Any person who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities; has a record of such impairment; or is regarded as having such impairment. In general, a physical or mental impairment includes hearing, mobility and visual impairments, chronic alcoholism, chronic mental illness, AIDS, AIDS Related Complex, and mental retardation that substantially limit one or more major life activities. Major life activities include walking, talking, hearing, seeing, breathing, learning, performing manual tasks, and caring for oneself. Persons with HIV/AIDS: A person with: the disease of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome or related diseases, or any conditions arising from the etiologic agent for acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, including infection with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Persons with severe mental illness: Persons with a severe and persistent mental or emotional impairment that seriously limits his or her ability to live independently, and which impairment could be improved by more suitable housing conditions. Potential Movers: Households in which the Housing Demand Survey respondent reported an interested in moving to a new unit in the future. Potential Owners: Households in which the Housing Demand Survey respondent reported intent to own their next home. Potential Renters: Households in which the Housing Demand Survey respondent reported intent to rent their next unit. Precariously Housed: [See At Risk for Homelessness] Preferred Bathrooms: The number of bathrooms desired in a new unit. Preferred Bedrooms: The number of bedrooms desired in a new unit. Seniors: See Elderly Shelter to Income Ratio: The percentage of total monthly household income that is used to pay for shelter costs (rent or mortgage payments). In this study, a shelter-to-income ratio in excess of .30 is considered to indicate some level of financial disadvantages. A shelter-to-income ratio in excess of .40 indicates severe financial disadvantage. SFD: A single-family detached dwelling unit Hawaii Housing Planning Study, 2011 Page 109 ©SMS, Inc. November, 2011 Sustainable Housing: Housing that designed to be affordable in perpetuity. Affordability is defined as having a sales or rental price below market values — usually at or below the price affordable to a family with a household income at the median or at specific HUD income qualification levels. Perpetuity is accomplished through limited equity arrangements incorporated in the deed or lease agreement. [See also: Sustainable Lease] Sustainable Lease: A housing contract that does not include ownership of the land. The perpetuity is accomplished through a lease agreement. Sustainable lease contracts may be used to eliminate high down payments, can allow property to be passed on to heirs, require no ground rent, and typically have a lease term greater than 60 years. [See also Leasehold and Fee Simple] Tenancy: There are three types of tenancy: own, rent, and occupy without payment Unit Condition: Self-reported assessment of the overall condition of the current unit, rated on a scale from excellent to poor. Unit Type: There are several different types of units reported in the HHPS Housing Demand Survey, including: single-family detached units, duplexes, multiplexes, townhouses, condominiums, and apartments. The units are self-reported by the survey respondents. For most analyses we simply recode them to either single-family or multi-family units. Note "condominium' is an ownership regime and not a unit type. In Hawaii nearly all condominiums are multifamily units and we code them all as multi-family. Victims of domestic violence: Victims of felony or misdemeanor crimes of violence committed by a current or former spouse of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabitating with or has cohabitated with the victim as a spouse, by a person similarly situated to a spouse of the victim under the domestic or family violence laws of the jurisdiction receiving grant monies, or by any other person against an adult or youth victim who is protected from that person's acts under the domestic, violence or family violence laws of the jurisdiction. Years: Data in this report come from different sources and use different definitions for years and other time periods. We have adopted a single rubric — the calendar year. In fact, however, the definitions of "year" depend on the data source. The following are the major sources and definitions used in this report: a. U.S. Census: Data for any given year are annual estimates centered on July 1 of that year. b. American Community Survey: They are annual estimates centered on July 1 of that year. c. HHPS Demand Survey: Surveys were conducted in different months each time the study was done. In every year, however, survey data were weighted to U.S. Census estimates or population estimates based on U.S. Census data. Therefore, the demand survey data reflect annual estimates centered on July 1 of the survey year. d. Inventory: Data were extracted from property transactions and entered to the TMK system in different months each year. More important, the timing of TMK data depends heavily on the resources available to enter data in each county. Data entry has usually been behind schedule in the last two decades, thus, for greatest comparability and accuracy, we used data as of December 31 of the year preceding the HHPS. Thus in 2003, the data represent units in the system as of December 31, 2002. In some years, the data entry was not up to date in all counties and the data may under represent housing stock for the last year reported. e. Housing Production: For any given year, the number of units constructed is actually the total number of authorized building permits recorded from January 1 through December 31 of that year. As such, our figures are likely to overestimate housing unit production in any given year. In every case, we have attempted to bring all data reported by year into one system based on annual estimates centered on July 1 or annual cumulated counts from January 1 through December 1 for the year noted [see also Annual Periods]. Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 110 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 APPENDIX G: HAWAII STATE PLANNING ACT (SELECTED SECTIONS) All state agencies, including the Office of Planning, are guided by two statewide planning documents (1) the Hawaii State Planning Act, which is a broad policy document that sets the table for all activities, programs, and decisions made by local and state agencies; and (2) the New Day Comprehensive Plan, which outlines the Administration's priorities. The Hawaii State Planning Act was signed into law in 1978 to "improve the planning process in this state, to increase the effectiveness of government and private actions, to improve coordination among different agencies and levels of government, to provide for wise use of Hawai'i's resources and to guide the future development of the state" (HRS § 226-1). The Act is codified under HRS Chapter 226. The Act sets forth the Hawaii state plan, which is a long-range comprehensive plan that includes an overall theme, goals, objectives, policies, priority guidelines, and implementation mechanisms. The Hawaii state plan: • Serves as a guide for the future long-range development of the state • Identifies the goals, objectives, policies, and priorities for the state • Provides a basis for determining priorities and allocating limited resources, such as public funds, services, human resources, land, energy, water, and other resources • Improves coordination of federal, state, and county plans, policies, programs, projects, and regulatory activities • Establishes a system for plan formulation and program coordination to provide for an integration of all major state, and county activities §226-102 Overall direction. The State shall strive to improve the quality of life for Hawai'i's present and future population through the pursuit of desirable courses of action in five major areas of statewide concern that merit priority attention: economic development, population growth and land resource management, affordable housing, crime and criminal justice, and quality education. [L 1978, c 100, pt of§2; am L 1986, c 276, §29] §226-104 Population growth and land resources priority guidelines. (a) Priority guidelines to effect desired statewide growth and distribution: (5) Explore the possibility of making available urban land, low-interest loans, and housing subsidies to encourage the provision of housing to support selective economic and population growth on the neighbor islands. §226-106 Affordable housing. Priority guidelines for the provision of affordable housing: (1) Seek to use marginal or nonessential agricultural land and public land to meet housing needs of low- and moderate-income and gap-group households. (2) Encourage the use of alternative construction and development methods as a means of reducing production costs. (3) Improve information and analysis relative to land availability and suitability for housing. (4) Create incentives for development which would increase home ownership and rental opportunities for Hawai'i's low- and moderate-income households, gap group households, and residents with special needs. (5) Encourage continued support for government or private housing programs that provide low interest mortgages to Hawai'i's people for the purchase of initial owner- occupied housing. (6) Encourage public and private sector cooperation in the development of rental housing alternatives. Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 111 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 (7) Encourage improved coordination between various agencies and levels of government to deal with housing policies and regulations. (8) Give higher priority to the provision of quality housing that is affordable for Hawai is residents and less priority to development of housing intended primarily for individuals outside of Hawaii. [L 1986, c 276, §33; am L 1989, c 250, §3] Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 112 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 APPENDIX H: BIBLIOGRAPHY Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing - State of Hawaii, 2010. Prepared for the Hawaii Public Housing Authority and Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation, SMS Research & Marketing Services, Inc., September, 2010. Analysis of the Honolulu, Hawaii Housing Market: as of January 1, 2005. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Policy Development & Research Division, Comprehensive Market Analysis Reports, 2005. Angel, Shlomo, (2000). Housing policy matters: A global analysis. Cambridge, England: Oxford University Press. Bauer, J., Battist, A, & Bamberger, J.D. Housing the Homeless with HIV in San Francisco. Presented at the North American Housing and HIV/AIDS Research Summit V, Toronto, Ontario, June 2010. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). State of Hawaii Department of Health. May 23, 2011. http://www-hhdw-org/cros/uploads/Data%20Source_%20BRFFS/Alcohol%2OConsumption%2OFr u its/B RFSS_D isa bi I ity_I N D_00001.pdf Brewbaker, Paul H. 21 February 2007. Dynamic aspects of Hawaii housing affordability [PowerPoint slides]. http://www.frbsf.org/community/resources/Hawai'i_housing/dynamicaspects.pdf. Bonham, Carl S., Kimberly Burnett, and Andrew Kato, (2010) Inclusionary Zoning: Implications for O'ahu's housing market, Honolulu: UHERO. Callies, David L., Regulating paradise: Land use controls in Hawaii, Second Edition, Honolulu, University of Hawaii Press, 2010. Center on Disability Studies Annual Report 2009-2010. University of Hawaii - Manoa. http://www.cds.Hawai i.edu/main/downloads/annualReports/2009_2010/CDSAnnualReport2009_ 2010.pdf City and County of Honolulu, 2009. Annual report on the status of land use on Oahu: Fiscal year 2009, Department of Planning and Permitting, August 2010. Clarey, Aaron. Behind the Housing Crash: Confessions from an Insider. New York: BookSurge Publishing, 2008. Consumer& Market Insights, LLC, Housing needs study preparation and outreach – Honolulu, Hawaii, Proceedings Report, January 12-13, 2001. County of Hawai i, Consolidated Plan, 2010-2014, prepared by the County of Hawaii Office of Housing and Community Development, January 29, 2010. Davies, J. & Hammeal-Urban, R. Federal Housing and Domestic Violence: Introduction to Programs, Policy and Advocacy Opportunities. National Resource Center on DV, 1999. Davis, Morris A. and Michael G. Palumbo, 2007, "The Price of Residential Land in Large US Cities," Journal of Urban Economics, vol. 63 (1), p. 352-384; data located at Land and Property Values in the U.S., Lincoln Institute of Land Policy http://www.lincolninst.edu/resources/. DHS Annual Report. Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 113 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 "Domestic Violence Counts: Hawaii Summary." National Network to End Domestic Violence. 2010. http://www.n ne dv.o rg/d ocs/Census/D VCo u nts2010/DV Co u nts 10_StateS u mma ry_H I_Co to r.pdf Essoyan, Susan. "Homeless in Plain Sight: Shelters see jump in Pacific islanders and Micronesian and Marshallese migrants have a special claim to U.S. services," February 16, 2010. Fawcett, Denby. "Expert Says 30 Percent Of Hawaii Homeless From Out Of State-Service Providers Say That Drains Scarce Resources." KITX News, June 2, 2010. Fernandes, Ritabelle and Gandy, Hortense. "Housing Options for Seniors on O'ahu." Kokua Kalihi Valley, 2011. http://www1.honolulu.gov/dcs/kkvhousingguide2011.pdf Gallagher, Mike. Oahu Single Family Home & Condo Real Estate Report, February 2011. Glaeser, Edward L. 14 July 2009. How to (Sort Of) Predict Housing Prices. http://eco no mix.blogs.nytimes-co m/2009/07/14/how-to-so rt-of-pred ict-ho us i ng-price s/. Glaeser, Edward L. (2009), How to (sort of) predict housing prices, Today's Economist, July 14, 2009. Glaeser, Edward L. and Joseph Gyourko (2008), Rethinking federal housing policy: How to make housing plentiful and affordable, The AEI Press, 2008. Glaeser, Edward, Joseph Gyourko, and Raven Saks, 2005. Why have house prices gone up? American Economic Review 95, No. 2:329-33. Goldman Sachs Global ECS Research. "US Economic Outlook 2011 ". US Economics Analyst 10/50 (17 December 2010). Web, 30 March 2011 http://www2.goldmansachs.com/ideas/global-economic- o utloo k/2011-economic-outlook/rig ht-co I u mn/us-eco n-12-17-pdf.pdf Gomes, Andrew. "O'ahu Home Prices: Skid Ends." Star Advertiser, 11 January 2011- Web, 22 February 2011. http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/20110111_Skid_ends.html. Greenberg, George D., Jeffrey A. Miller, Lawrence B. Mohr, and Bruce C. Vladek, (1977), Developing public policy theory: Perspectives from Empirical Research, American Political Science Review, Vol. 17, No 4, December 1977, p. 1532+_ Gyourko, Joseph, Albert Saiz, and Anita A. Summers 2007. A New Measure of the Local Regulatory Environment for Housing Markets: The Wharton Residential Land Use Regulatory Index. The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Final Version, March 29, 2007. Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation, State of Hawaii Consolidated Plan for program years 2010 through 2014, Honolulu, January 2010. Hawaii Housing Forecast 2011. Web, 31 March 2011. http://www.housingpredictor.com/Hawai'i.html. Hawaii Real Estate Market Reports. Web, 20 January 2011- http://www.zillow.com/local- i nfo/#metric=mt%3 D34%26dt%3D 1%26tp%3D5%26rt%3D 14%26r%3 D 102001%252C394913%2 52C394806%252C394463%26e I%3D0. "Hawai'i Receives HIV/AIDS Housing Grant." KITV News, July 22, 2009. http://www.kity.co m/r/20149618/deta i I.html Hawaii State Plan on Aging: 2008-2011. State of Hawaii, Executive Office on Aging, June, 2007. http://www.Hawai'iadre.org/Portals/_AgencySite/Hawai'iADRC/Plan pdf Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 114 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 Hawaii State Planning Act. Accessed August 2011. http://H awa i'i2050.o rg/i mag es/u ploads/H RS226_State Plan n i ngAct.pdf "HIV/AIDS and Homelessness." NCH Fact Sheet#9. National Coalition for the Homeless, August, 2007. http://www.nationaIhomeless.org/publicatio ns/facts/H IV.pdf HIV, AIDS and Housing Issues. Interagency Coalition on AIDS and Development. http://www.icad- cisd.com/pdf/Housing Fact Sheet Final EN.pdf Home Builders Association, On Common Ground: Joint principles on inclusionary housing policies, July, 2005. Homeless in Minnesota, 2003. Wilder Research Center, February 2004. Honolulu Area Local Market Report, Third Quarter 2010. National Association of Realtors. January 2011. Web, 14 March 2011. http://www.reaItor.org/files/research/localmarket/hi_ho nolulu.pdf. Housing is Cost-Effective HIV Prevention and Care. The North American Housing & HIV/AIDS Research Summit Series, February 2011. http://nationalaidshousing.org/PDF/Factsheets- Cost%20 Effe ctive.pdf http://www.to pprod uce rwe bsite.co m/u se rs/16541/down to ads/O'a h u%20Fe b'11%20Re po rt.pdf. HUD Strategic Plan: FY 2010-2015, (2010). U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, May 2010. James, Nathan. "Offender Reentry: Correctional Statistics, Reintegration into the Community, and Recidivism". Congressional Research Service, June 1, 2011. Kiviat, Barbara, The case against homeownership, Time, vol. 176, no. 10, 2010, pp 40-46. Lai, M.C., Yuen, S., Yuan, S., Zhang, J., and Okano, S.Y. (2009). Alcohol and Drug Treatment Services Report: Hawaii, 2000-2008. Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Center on the Family. Lakin, K. Charlie, Sheryl Larson, Patricia Salmi, and Amanda Webster. Residential Services for Persons with Developmental Disabilities: Status and Trends Through 2009. University of Minnesota Institute on Community Integration. Accessed June 2011. http://rtc.umn.edu/risp09 Laney, Leroy O. (2011), Economic Forecast, 2010-2011 Edition, First Hawaiian Bank, Honolulu, 2010. Making Home Possible in Hawaii. Freddie Mac, 2008. Web, 3 February 2011. http://www.fre dd ie mac.co m/co rpo rate/a bo ut/pdf/H awa i'i.pdf. Maui Real Estate Report. Prudential Locations, LLC. Web, 20 February 2011. http://www.prude ntia I locations-co m/0'a h u-re a I-estate-re po rt.as px. McCullagh, Amber C. and Robert W. Gilmer. "Houston Business—A Perspective on the Houston Economy." Houston Economic Update, January 2008. Web, 21 January 2011. http://www.da I Iasfed.o rg/research/ho usto n/2008/h b0801.html McDonald, Lawrence G. and Lawrence G. McDonald (Author) Non-profit Housing Association of Northern California, Affordable by Choice: Trends in California inclusionary housing programs, San Francisco, 2006. Oahu Households: Change from 2007 to 2035. Oahu Metropolitan Planning Organization, 2007. Web, 7 February 2011. http://www.O'a h u mpo.o rg/o rtp_docs/02%200'a h u%20Ho use ho Ids%202007%202035.pdf. Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 115 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 Oahu Real Estate Report. Prudential Locations, LLC. Web, 20 February 2011. http://www.prude ntia I locations-co m/O'a h u-re a I-estate-re po rt.as px. Omori, Jill. "Reasons for Homelessness among Micronesians at a Transitional Shelter in Hawaii Developing Human Resources in the Pacific, Vol 14. No 1. 2007. Out of Reach 2011, National Low Income Housing Coalition, June 2011, http://www.nlihc.org/oor/oor20l1. Patrick Robinson. A Colossal Failure of Common Sense: The Inside Story of the Collapse of Lehman Brothers. New York: Crown Business, 2009. Plan to End Homelessness in Hawaii. Hawaii Interagency Council on Homelessness. September, 2008. Population and Economic Projections for the State of Hawaii to 2035. State of Hawaii Department of Economic Development &Tourism, 5 August 2009. Web. 31 March 2011. http://H awa i'i.gov/d bedt/i nfo/economic/data_re po rts/2035 Lo ng Ra ngeSe ries/. Rajan, Raghuram. Fault Lines: How Hidden Fractures Still Threaten the World Economy, New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 2010. Record of Decision on the Honolulu High Capacity Transit Corridor Project in Metropolitan Honolulu, Hawaii. Federal Transit Administration, 18 January 2011. Web, 30 January 2011. http://www.s fide sha re.net/c ivi I beat/fta-record-of-decision-to-ho no I u I u-2011. Reif, Susan & Krishner, Lisa. Subsidized Housing and the Unique Needs of DV Victims. National Center on Law and Policy. 2000. Retsinas, Nicolas P., and Eric S. Belsky, Eds., Revisiting rental housing: Policies, programs, and priorities, Washington, D.C., The Brooking Institute, 2008. Saiz, Albert (2010) The geographic determinants of housing supply, Quarterly Journal of Economics, R13, January 5, 2010. Schwartz, Alex F. Housing Policy in the United States, second edition, New York: Rutledge, Taylor and Francis Group, 2010. Seiter, Richard and Kadela, Karen. Prisoner Reentry: What Works, What Does Not, and What Is Promising. Crime & Delinquency, Vol. 49 No. 3, July 2003. pp. 360-388. State of Hawaii Consolidated Plan —for Program Years July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2010. Prepared by Housing and Community Development Corporation of Hawaii, September 16, 2004. State of Hawaii Consolidated Plan Action Plan — Fourth Program Year; Concentrating on the Counties for Hawaii, Kauai, and Maui. Prepared by Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation, May 2008. State of Hawaii Consolidated Plan, Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER), Fifth Program Year, September 2010. State of Hawaii Consolidated Plan Action Plan - Program Year 2011. Prepared by Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation, May 2011. Successful Aging in Hawai is A Survey of Developers, Landowners, and Other Land Use Stakeholders. AARP Research & Strategic Analysis, January, 2011. www.aarp.org/research Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 116 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011 Testimony on House Bill 130 Relating to Community Reintegration. Jodie F. Maesake-Hirata, Interim Director Department of Public Safety, February 17, 2011. The State of the Nation's Housing, 2011. Joint Center for Housing Studies, Harvard University, 2011. U.S. Census Bureau, Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division, Historical Census of Housing Tables, Vacation Homes, Source, last revised: December 02, 2004. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2009 Worst case housing needs of people with disabilities: Supplemental findings of the Worst Case Housing Needs 2009: Report to Congress, Office of Policy Development and Research, March 2011. Vandenbroucke, David A. 1 March 2007. Housing Affordability Data System. http://www.h ud u se r.o rg/po rta I/datasets/ha ds/hads.html. Wallace, R., 1989. "Homelessness": Contagious destruction of housing and municipal service cuts in New York City:1. The demographics of a housing deficit, Environment and Planning, A2:485-498. Worst Case Housing Needs of People with Disabilities: Supplemental Findings of the Worst Case Housing Needs 2009: Report to Congress. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Policy Development and Research, March 2011. www.huduser.org Wright, James D., and Beth A. Rubin, 1991. Is homelessness a housing problem? Housing Policy Debate, 5 (Issue 2): 177-202. Yuan, S., Trundle, H., and Fong, G. (2010). Homeless Service Utilization Report: Hawaii 2010. Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Center on the Family. Hawaii Housing Planning Study,2011 Page 117 0 SMS, Inc. November,2011