Advisory Center for Affordable Settlements & Housing

Document Download Download
Document Type General
Publish Date 05/02/2023
Author David Jaffee
Published By David Jaffee
Edited By Saba Bilquis
Uncategorized

Jacksonville’s Affordable Rental Housing Crisis

Affordable Rental Housing Crisis:

This report is a product of the Jax Rental Housing Project (JRHP) at the University of North Florida housed within the Northeast Florida Center for Community Initiatives. The research and analysis in this first full-length report focuses on:
• the current state of the rental housing crisis in Jacksonville;
• the workforce sectors facing the most severe rental cost burden;
• the role of institutional investors as a factor contributing to the rental housing crisis;
• the relationship between institutional investor ownership and eviction filings against tenants;
• the role of weak tenant rights and protections in the state of Florida;
• ideas about housing that prevent effective policy solutions;
• and some specific policy proposals to address the current crisis.

The report represents a critical analysis that draws data from existing sources while also collecting and analyzing relevant rental housing data for at the city/county and zip code levels. In addition to these quantitative data, the project is also collecting qualitative data based on interviews with primarily renters/tenants currently experiencing the rental housing crisis conditions.

Evidence for a rental housing crisis in Jacksonville is reflected in a wide range of indicators. One of the most common measures is the percentage of renters that are cost-burdened. It is assumed that renters are cost-burdened when greater than 30% of their income is absorbed by the costs of housing. As the cost burden increases, less income is available to cover the cost of other non-discretionary financial obligations as well as discretionary forms of consumption.

The most recent available data indicate that 47.4% of Jacksonville renters are cost-burdened (greater than 30% of income absorbed by rent) and 23.2% are severely cost-burdened (greater than 50% of income absorbed by rent).

There is one critical point to underline about these statistics – they are based on data collected in 2019. For that reason, these figures are gross underestimates given the fact that the sharpest rent increases have occurred since 2020.

This can be made clear by examining the data collected by several real estate companies (Zillow, Apartment List, Redfin) that estimate monthly rent levels over time by county, city, metropolitan statistical area, and zip code, allowing for the calculation of the percentage increase in rent since 2020. As has been widely reported in the media, the percent increase in average rent in Jacksonville/Duval County consistently places Jacksonville in the top ten major metro areas in the US for rental price spikes.

More specifically, based on the Zillow Observed Rent Index, rent in Duval County increased by 38.8% from January 2020 to November 2022. Apartment List, using a median rent methodology confined to apartments, reports a 34.2% increase. Apartment List also calculates the median monthly rent for one and two-bedroom apartments. Since 2020 median rents for a two-bedroom apartment increased 34%. To put this in dollar figures, the average renter in Duval County saw somewhere between a $370-$470 increase in their monthly rent payment over two years. For a two-bedroom apartment, the figure is $368.

The percentage increase in rent over this period varies by community. Of the 21 zip codes for which Zillow reports the Observed Rent Index, 11 exceed a 40% increase and one reaches a 50% increase (32257).

For a large portion of the Jacksonville workforce, the rising cost and current levels of rent are unsustainable given no comparable increase in wages and the other rising costs of living. As a greater percentage of income is absorbed by rent payments, there is less income remaining to cover the cost of other necessities of life. There is also less discretionary income for spending locally on goods and services, which has broader negative macroeconomic effects.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *