Skip to Main Content
NY.gov Portal State Agency Listing Search all of NY.gov
Our Agencies:

Division of Housing & Community Renewal

New York State Consolidated Plan Federal Fiscal Years 2006 - 2010 and the Annual Action Plan for Program Year 2006

As approved by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development December 29, 2005

[ Table of Contents ]

[ Housing Market Analysis | Strategic Plan | Action Plans ]

Housing Market Analysis

General Characteristics

Section 91.310 (a) General Characteristics

"Based on data available to the State, the plan must describe the significant characteristics of the state's housing markets (including such aspects as the supply, demand and condition and cost of housing)."

Overview

New York is a very large and diverse State with a heterogeneous population, a complex and growing economy and many housing markets. Although some general trends occur statewide, the dynamics of supply and demand vary substantially among these markets.

New York's population grew by 5.5% during the 1990s, is estimated to have grown by 1.5% between 2000 and 2005 and is projected to grow by 1.0% during the five years covered by this Consolidated Plan. During those same time periods, the supply of housing in the State increased or will increase by 6%, 1.8%, and 1.0% respectively. New York has the nation's largest stock of public housing, with nearly 200,000 units in the State's housing inventory.

The demand for housing is strong in many areas of the State. Vacancy rates are generally low in New York City and its suburbs as well as in portions of the Mid-Hudson Valley where an expanding economy and growing population are creating substantial development pressures. Elsewhere, demand varies substantially in Upstate metropolitan areas and is generally lower in non-metropolitan counties.

Housing costs are also highest in Downstate metropolitan areas of the State and in metropolitan areas in the mid-Hudson Valley. Reflecting the balance between supply and demand, cost vary substantially in Upstate metropolitan areas and in non-metropolitan counties.

Some long-standing, national trends are evident in many parts of New York including: the movement of middle income people from cities to suburbs and beyond; the restructuring of the economy from manufacturing to service-related employment; and the increase in smaller, often single-parent, households. Other trends are more local and/or transitory in nature; for example, the expansion or closing of a military base or the extent and effectiveness of efforts to attract economic development.

But, while overall averages and statewide trends are often helpful, they must not obscure the fact that New York is made up of many different communities. Some communities have experienced significant growth, with expanding populations, increasing incomes, and a shortage of available housing. In other communities, population has grown little if at all and it is more challenging to create improved economic opportunities. Many areas have experienced cycles of expansion and contraction in the recent past.

Recent Economic Trends - Statewide1

1 Information in this section is aggregated into regions defined by the New York State Department of Labor. These data were obtained from:

Regional Analysts' Corner. Employment in New York State, April 2005. New York State Department of Labor

NY State Adds Private Sector Jobs for Eighth Consecutive Month. New York State Department of Labor, Workforce New York.

New York State 2001, Research Bulletin No. 70. Business Fact Book, Empire State Development, March 2005.

Regional Economic Profiles. The State of Working New York 2003, Fiscal Policy Institute.

The 2001 national recession, the decline of the Wall Street and dot-com industries, and the September 11, 2001 attack on the World Trade Center, significantly weakened the economy of New York State. Although the recession impacted the Nation as a whole, the other two factors made the rate of job loss much greater in New York State than experienced across the nation.

While New York shares in the Nation's loss of manufacturing jobs, New York's financial sector lost 48,000 jobs between 2001 and 2003, while the nation showed an increase in financial sector employment. New York State also suffered the loss of 85,000 jobs in the professional and business services, a 7.6% job drop compared to the nation's 4.7% decline.

The State's recovery from the recession has been slow but in the past few years and the unemployment rate declined. By April 2004 the unemployment rate across the State was 6% and it steadily declined to 4.9% by April of 2005. A slight increase of 8,300 private sector jobs (0.1%) between April 2004 and April 2005 resulted in a total employment of 7,024,200 persons.

New York City

The New York City encompasses five counties, Bronx, Kings, New York, Queens and Richmond. New York City accounts for 42% of the State's population, 43% of its employment base, and 45% of its personal income. Due to the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center, New York State's job loss was primarily in New York City which lost approximately 100,000 jobs. Between December 2000 and June 2003, New York City lost 240,000 jobs, a decline of 6.4%. More than 40% of these job losses were a result of the 2001 World Trade Center attack. In 2000, prior to the World Trade Center attacks, the city's unemployment rate was 5.3%. By 2003 this rate increased to 8.1% significantly higher than the nation's 6.4% unemployment rate. Recovery has been slow, but since April 2004, when the unemployment rate was 7.1%, the rate has decreased to 5.3% as of April 2005.

Per capita income in New York City rose 20.4% between 1990 and 2001 with total personal income in 2001 being $311.5 billion. As of 2003 New York City's per capita income ranked the second highest in the state behind Long Island. At the same time the per capita income was increasing, the poverty rate was rising reaching 21.2% by 2000.

Long Island Region

The Long Island region, Nassau and Suffolk counties, comprises 14.6% of the State's total population and has one of the most diversified economies of any region in the State. With over 68,000 employees, the professional, scientific and technical services sectors account for 5.8% of the total employment in the region. Since April of 2004, the number of jobs in Long Island has increased by 14,600 or 1.2%. The area's unemployment rate was 4.5% in April of 2004 but decreased to 3.8% by April 2005. Long Island's population increased to 2.8 million between 1990 and 2002.

Per capita income for the Long Island region rose 14.3% to $42,430 between 1990 and 2001, which was below the statewide increase of 17.3% over the same period. The region's per capita income is the highest among the State's regions. At the same time per capita income was increasing, the poverty rate rose to 5.6%. However, this percentage remains far below the State's 14.6% poverty rate and is the lowest among the State's regions. Residents of the Long Island region also have median incomes considerably above the median income for the State.

Hudson Valley Region

The Hudson Valley region consists of seven counties: Dutchess: Orange; Putnam; Rockland; Sullivan; Ulster; and, Westchester. Despite a serious recession, between 2000 and 2004, the Hudson Valley region managed to add 6,839 jobs between 2000 and 2002, more than any other region in the State. Although the region experienced job gains, the region's unemployment rate increased to 3.9% by the first part of 2003. However, this rate was the lowest among all the State's regions and was significantly below the State's average of 6.3% during the first-half of 2003. Since April 2004, the number of jobs in Putnam, Rockland and Westchester Counties has increased by 11,700 or 2.1% and the unemployment rate has decreased from 4.0% in April 2004 to 3.3% in April 2005. Between February 2004 and February 2005, private sector employment has increased by 16,700 or 2.3% to 728,100.

Per capita income in the Hudson Valley region rose 14.3% between 1990 and 2001 ranking it third highest among the State's regions. As per capita incomes increased, the poverty rate in the region also increased to 9.3% in 2000, but remained below the State's 14.6% poverty rate. Family income in the region is less evenly distributed than in the State as a whole, with proportionally more families falling into higher income brackets and fewer falling into the lower and middle income brackets.

Southern Tier Region

The Southern Tier region consists of nine counties: Broome; Chemung; Chenango; Delaware; Otsego; Schuyler; Steuben; Tioga; and, Tompkins. This region comprises 3.8% of the total population of the State but is the seventh largest region in the State. The region's population fell by an estimated 9,748 or 1.3% between 1990 and 2002, compared to a statewide growth of 6.5%.

The Southern Tier suffered employment losses of 6,194 or 2.0% jobs between 2000 and 2002. Unemployment rates grew to 5.7% in 2003, slightly less than the 1.8% increase experienced by the State overall. By 2004, the region's unemployment began to decline to 5.4% in April 2004 and finally to 4.6% by April 2005. Also between 2004 and 2005, private sector employment rose by 2,000 jobs or 0.8%, to 248,700.

Per Capita income in the Southern Tier rose 14.9% to $24,349 in the period between 1990 and 2001. This increase was below the average New York State increase of 17.3% in per capita income. In the last decade the poverty rate in the Southern Tier grew to 13.4% in 2000 and eight out of the nine counties in the Southern Tier had median family incomes below the median family income for the State. The Southern Tier region suffered from the lowest growth rate of total personal income in the State.

Capital Region

The Capital region is comprised of eight counties: Albany; Columbia; Greene; Rensselaer; Saratoga; Schenectady; Warren; and, Washington. The Capital region's population grew an estimated 36,836 from 1990 to 2002, a 3.7% gain compared to 6.5% growth statewide. The region comprises 5.4% of the total state population and is the sixth largest region in the State.

Between 1990 and 2000, the Capital District's employment grew 8.6% compared to 11.3% growth statewide. During the period 2000 and 2002, the Capital region's employment experienced only a slight gain of 193 jobs, which is a reflection of the slow growth of the New York State economy. Since April 2004, the number of jobs in the Albany, Schenectady and Troy areas has increased by 7,600 or 1.7%.

By 2003, the region's unemployment rate had risen to 4.0%, which was less than the increase experienced by the State overall. A slight increase in unemployment was seen in April 2004 when the unemployment rate rose to 4.2%, but by April 2005, the unemployment rate had decreased to 3.6%.

Per capita income in the Capital District rose 17.2% to $28,988 between 1990 and 2001. The increase was slightly below the New York State average increase in per capita income of 17.3%. The poverty rate in the region rose to 9.4% in 2000, remaining below the State's 14.6% poverty rate and total personal income grew the fastest between 2000 and 2001.

The Mohawk Valley Region

The Mohawk Valley region includes six counties: Fulton; Herkimer; Madison; Montgomery; Oneida; and, Schoharie. The Mohawk Valley's population lost 19,036 from 1990 to 2002, a decline of 3.6% compared to 6.5% growth statewide. The region comprises 2.6% of the total State population and is the second smallest region in the State.

The Mohawk Valley region experienced a job loss of 14,860 or 2.5% between 2000 and 2002, slightly greater than the 2.3% decline statewide. However, since April 2004, the number of non-farm jobs in the Utica and Rome area has increased slightly by 600 or 0.5%. Unemployment rates in the Mohawk Valley region rose to 5.5% in 2003 and remained at that rate through 2004 declining slightly to 4.9% by April 2005.

Between 1990 and 2001, per capita income rose 17.2% to $24,651. The increase was slightly below the average New York State increase in per capita income of 17.3%. During the same period, the poverty rate in the region grew to 12.3%, slightly lower than New York State's 14.6% poverty rate in 2000.

Central New York Region

The Central New York region is comprised of four counties: Cayuga, Cortland; Onondaga; and, Oswego. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, the Central New York region's population declined by nearly 8,000 or 1.1% compared to a 6.5% increase statewide. Between 1992 and 2000, the region's employment base grew by 3.0% compared to 11.3% at the State level, but between 2000 and 2002, the region lost nearly 6,000 jobs or 1.8% compared to a decrease of 2.3% statewide. However, a slight recovery was seen in 2004 with an increase of 3,700 jobs or 1.2% since April 2004.

The unemployment rate in the region rose to 5.7% in 2003 with a slight decrease seen by April 2004, when the unemployment rate was 5.3%. The rate decreased again by April 2005, when the rate stood at 4.7%. Private sector employment in the Syracuse metro area rose 2,900, or 1.1%, to 257,700 over the twelve month period ending February 2005.

Per capita income in the region grew by nearly 12% to $24,629 between 1990 and 2001, compared to a 17.3% increase for the State. During the same period, the poverty rate in the region was 12.3%.

Finger Lakes Region

The Finger Lakes region includes nine counties: Genesee; Livingston; Monroe; Ontario; Orleans; Seneca; Wayne; Wyoming; and, Yates. The Finger Lakes Region grew in population by 3.8% from 1990 to 2002, ranking fourth among New York State's regions.

Over the period 1992 to 2000, employment in the region grew by 7.5% or 39,393 jobs compared to 11.2% for the State. Since April 2004, the number of jobs in the Rochester area has decreased by 900 or 0.2%. Unemployment in the region rose to 5.9% in the first half of 2003. However, the unemployment rate has since decreased slightly, reaching 5.8% in April 2004 and 4.8% in April 2005.

Between 1990 and 2000, per capita income in the region rose by 9.1%, about half of the state rate, ranking tenth among the State's regions. During the same period, the poverty level increased slightly to 10.3%. The Finger Lakes region was second in the State in total personal income growth.

North Country Region

There are seven counties in the North Country region: Clinton; Essex; Franklin; Hamilton; Jefferson; Lewis; and, St. Lawrence. The North Country's population lost an estimated 2,384 or 0.6% between 1990 and 2002 compared to a statewide growth of 6.5%. The region comprises 2.2% of the total State population and is the smallest region in the State.

Employment growth in the region added only 629 jobs between 2000 and 2002, yet the unemployment rate fell to 7.2% by 2003.

Per capita income in the North Country region rose 13.2% to $22,233 in the period between 1990 and 2001. The increase was well below the average New York State increase in per capita income of 17.3%.

Between 1990 and 2000, the poverty rate in the North Country grew to 14.3% slightly lower than New York State's 14.6% poverty rate in 2000. All seven counties in the North Country have median family incomes below the median family income for the State. Total personal income in the region was the lowest of the New York State regions in 2001.

Western New York Region

The Western New York region encompasses five counties; Allegany; Cattaraugus; Chautauqua; Erie; and, Niagara. Western New York's population declined by 2.1% or 31,009 persons between 1990 and 2002, compared to a statewide increase of 6.5%. The region accounts for about 7.5% of the State's population and is the fourth largest region in the state. It is ranked ninth in terms of population growth during the period.

Between 1992 and 2000, total employment in the region grew by 4.8% or 29,248 jobs compared to 11.2% for the State. Between 2000 and 2002, the Western New York region lost 14,714 jobs, or 2.3%, the same rate as the State's job loss. The unemployment rate in the region rose to 6.3% in 2003. Since 2004, the number of jobs in the Buffalo and Niagara Falls areas has increased by 300 or 0.1%. The area's unemployment rate was 6.1% in April 2004 and by April 2005 it had declined to 5.2%

Between 1990 and 2000, the poverty rate in the Western New York Region stayed about the same and every county in the region had a median income below the average for the State. During the same period, the region's total personal income increased by $4 billion or about 1% and per capita income in the region rose by 12% to $23,564. The gain in personal income was below the 17% gain at the State level and it ranked ninth among regions in the State.

Recent Demographic Trends

Between 2000 and 2004, the State's population increased from 18,998,743 to 19,272,088 persons. This represents an increase of 273,345 persons or 1.42%. The national population growth rate during this period was 4.06%.

Although the total state population continues to grow, there is a wide variation in population growth rates within the State. Some areas, such as New York City and the Mid-Hudson Valley, are seeing high rates of population growth. For example, Orange County saw a population increase of 28,985 persons, or 8.5%, between 2000 and 2004. Other areas, such as the Southern Tier, parts of the Mohawk Valley and the Adirondacks are experiencing population declines. For example, the U.S. Census estimates that Hamilton County experienced a population decrease between 2000 and 2004 of 2.9%, and Broome County a 1.6% decline.

These regional fluctuations in population growth have a direct impact on housing needs. State programs to address these diverse needs must remain dynamic and responsive to regional trends. For example, in areas where population is growing, such as the Mid-Hudson Valley, housing costs have increased dramatically since 2000. In some areas, the increase in the median sales price of homes is up over 40% since 2000. This has placed a strain on housing affordability, especially as it relates to providing affordable housing for the growing workforce. In other areas of the State where population is declining, as it is in portions of the Mohawk Valley and Adirondacks, there is also a need for housing assistance because incomes are depressed in these areas and the housing stock is much older than other areas of the State.

The characteristics of New York's population are also changing. According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, New York State experienced a net international migration of 562,265 persons between April 1, 2000 and July 1, 2004. Immigrant populations, while contributing to the economy in the long-term, are also more likely to have immediate needs for housing as they enter the housing market.

Another trend is that the State's population is growing older. Between 2000 and 2003, the U.S. census estimates that the median age of New Yorkers increased from 35.9 years to 37.1 years of age. For this same time period, the percentage of New Yorkers age 45 and over increased from 34.30 % to 37.22%. This trend is projected to continue into the foreseeable future.

Exhibit 22
New York State
Population by Age

Age

2000

2003

Under 5 Years

6.8%

6.5%

5 - 9

7.3%

6.6%

10 - 14

7.3%

7.1%

15 - 19

7.2%

6.2%

20 - 24

6.7%

6.4%

25 - 34

14.2%

13.9%

35 - 44

16.1%

16.1%

45 - 54

13.3%

14.4%

55 - 59

4.8%

5.8%

60 - 64

3.8%

4.4%

65 - 74

6.5%

6.6%

75 - 84

4.4%

4.6%

85+

1.5%

1.4%

45+

34.3%

37.2%

As the State's population grows older, the demand for housing programs, health care and personal care services to serve the elderly will continue to grow. The demand for senior housing will increase across all income ranges, but especially for low-moderate income seniors. For retirees on a fixed income, housing assistance to address weatherization needs, accessibility issues, and general affordability issues will only grow more pronounced in the coming years. As a result, the need for State assistance to serve residents of New York State will continue to grow.

The Supply of Housing in New York State - Type, Tenure, Size and Condition

The 2000 census counted 7,679,307 housing units in New York State. More recently, the Census Bureau estimates that, by 2004, the State's housing inventory had increased by 1.8% to 7,819,237 units.

Type of Structures

Statewide, according to the 2000 census:


Census 2000 found that, in New York State with respect to type of structure, housing units are :


In New York, 91% of all units are in one of the State's 13 metropolitan areas.


The type and tenure of housing varies substantially with location. Rental units in larger buildings are most typical of larger cities while owner-occupied single family homes predominate in smaller cities, suburbs and rural areas.

In New York City:


In Downstate suburban counties:


In Upstate metropolitan areas:


In the State's twenty four non-metropolitan counties:


Larger renter-occupied multi-family apartments are typical of larger cities in the State while owner-occupied single-family homes predominate in smaller cities, suburbs and rural areas.

For example, in New York City, the majority of the housing stock, 61%, is located within multi-family buildings with 5 or more dwelling units. Another 22% of the dwelling units are located in buildings with 2-4 dwelling units and only 17% of the dwelling units in New York City are located within single-family homes. This is in sharp contrast with the Downstate suburban counties in which only 11% of all dwelling units are located in multi-family buildings with 5 or more units, 9% are located in buildings with 2 to 4 units, and the majority, or 80%, of all dwelling units are located in single-family homes.

The pattern of housing development in the Upstate metropolitan areas, including areas like Rochester, Buffalo and Syracuse, is similar to that of the State's Downstate suburban counties. In these Upstate metropolitan areas, 13% of all dwelling units are located in buildings with 5 or more units, 20% in buildings with 2-4 units, and the remaining 67% are single-family homes.

Mobile homes are most frequently found in rural counties, where they comprise 13% of all housing units. They are much less frequent in metropolitan counties where they comprise less than 2% of all housing units and are usually located in the rural or suburban fringe areas of those counties.

Tenure of Units

Among occupied units statewide:


Homeownership rates vary considerably across the State. In New York City, for example, only 30.2% of all dwelling units are owner-occupied, and 69.8% are renter-occupied. In the Downstate suburban counties surrounding the City, the homeownership rates are much higher. For example, in Nassau County, 80.3% of all dwelling units are owner-occupied, and only 19.7% are renter occupied. In Suffolk County, 79.8% of housing units are owner-occupied, and 20.2% renter occupied. In Westchester County, 60.1% of units are owner-occupied and 39.9% renter-occupied. In the Upstate metropolitan areas the homeownership rate varies between 65% and 72%. In the State's 24 non-metropolitan counties the homeownership rate averages 70%.

Size of Units

The majority of housing units in New York State's housing inventory have fewer than 3 bedrooms. Efficiency and 1 bedroom units comprise 26% of the State's housing stock; two-bedroom units make up 25.8%; units with 3 or more bedrooms comprise 48.3% of all dwelling units in the State. Smaller units are most common in the New York metropolitan area, where housing prices and land prices are high.

Exhibit 23
New York State
Housing Inventory
By Area, Tenure and Size

 

Ownership

Rental

0/1 BR

2 BRs

3+ BRs

0/1 BR

2 BRs

3+ BRs

New YorkState

267,366

704,703

2,772,098

1,570,300

1,114,274

633,039

Metro Areas

12,647

618,656

2,476,572

1,515,293

1,052,185

578,822

Non-metro Counties

249,719

86,127

295,526

55,007

62,089

54,217

Statewide, owner occupancy units are typically larger than rental units.

Owner Occupied:


Renter Occupied:


In the New York metropolitan area, smaller rental units predominate with 56% of the occupied housing stock comprised of rental units with two or fewer bedrooms. Elsewhere in the State, owner-occupied units with three or more bedrooms are the most common type of housing.

Condition of Housing

As previously noted in the "Needs Assessment" section of this plan, direct, reliable and detailed information on the condition of the New York State's housing stock is not available. Limited Census 2000 data do not directly address serious deficiencies in important building elements such as heating systems, roofs, windows, foundations, weatherization/insulation, etc. As a consequence, available census data substantially understate the extent to which housing units in New York State are substandard and in need of major repair or replacement.

In the absence of more direct information, the age of the housing stock is a widely used indicator of housing condition. Census 2000 data indicate that the stock of existing housing in New York State is relatively old:


Given the advanced age of much of New York State's housing stock, it is likely that substantial rehabilitation or replacement of units will be required to maintain an adequate housing supply.

Residential Construction Activity

Over the past several years, growth in residential construction employment has been strong. Statistics cited by the New York State Department of Labor indicate that 42,000 persons were employed in "Residential Building Construction" in July of 2005. This was a 0.6% net increase over the previous year and a 1.4% change over the previous year. According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, there were an estimated 49,149 housing units authorized by building permits in New York State in 2002. In 2004, the Census Bureau estimates this number increased to 53,497, an 8.8% increase. Of the 53,497 units authorized for construction in 2004; 23,948 or 44.5% were single family homes; 6,076 or 11.4% were in two unit buildings; 5,156 or 9.7% were 3-4 unit buildings, and 18,149 or 34% were buildings with 5 or more dwelling units.

Numbers alone do not describe the intensity of the activity in downstate multi-family construction. Demand is so intense in some parts of New York City, that builders are now beginning projects in areas such as Manhattan north of the nineties where for many years there has been little to no residential development. There have also been numerous reports of bidding wars on both new and existing homes that are for sale, with the sales price exceeding the asking price. A recent New York Times article describes the housing construction boom in the following manner: "... the boom has also worsened the affordable housing crisis in New York City and across the state. It has burdened homeowners with rising assessments and property taxes - putting elderly people on fixed incomes in particular difficulty. It has priced first-time buyers and young adults out of the market. It has burdened apartment dwellers with the rent increases that accompany rising taxes and operating costs. And, it has driven up the cost of land, leading to higher construction costs and making housing assistance all the more necessary."

Residential construction activity is strong in many areas of New York.

Housing Affordability and Need

Between 37% and 61% of New York State households cannot afford the rent for a 2-bedroom apartment based at the local Fair Market Rent. This trend hold true in both Upstate and Downstate housing markets, as the following tables clearly demonstrate. In the New York City metropolitan area, where wages are higher, rents are also higher, creating a cost burden for many apartment dwellers. Even Upstate, where the cost of housing is relatively lower, the decline in real wages and earning potential has increased the affordability gap.

For example, in the State's Upstate metropolitan counties, the percentage of renters who could not afford FY 2003 Fair Market Rents ranged from a low of 43% in the Albany/Schenectady/Troy area to a high of 61% in Dutchess County. Even in smaller metropolitan areas such as Elmira and Glen Falls, 44% of renters could not afford FY 2003 Fair Market Rents(FMR). The affordability gap for these renters is expected to increase as a result of the recent housing boom. The boom has resulted in rent increases that accompany rising taxes and operating costs. The exhibit below clearly shows that there are a high percentage of renters who cannot afford FMR in all metropolitan counties in the State.

Exhibit 24
Renters Who Cannot Afford
Fair Market Rents

MSA / PMSA

Percentage of Renters
Who Cannot Afford
FY 2003 2 BR FMR

Albany / Schenectady / Troy

43%

Binghamton

46%

Buffalo / Niagara Falls

54%

Dutchess County

61%

Elmira

44%

Glens Falls

44%

Jamestown

50%

Nassau/Suffolk

58%

New York

60%

Newburgh

49%

Rochester

50%

Rockland

53%

Syracuse

50%

Utica / Rome

46%

Westchester

60%

Even in the State's non-metropolitan areas, where housing costs are traditionally lower, a gap between wages and rents leaves many people unable to afford the Fair Market Rent. On a county-by-county basis, the County with the lowest percentage of persons able to afford the Fair Market Rent was Steuben County at 37%. The non-metropolitan county that had the highest percentage of persons unable to afford the Fair Market Rent was Tompkins County, at 57%. One factor influencing Fair Market Rent in Tompkins County is the presence of Cornell University and Ithaca College, both of which drive up the demand for rental housing due to their large student populations. Still, there is clearly a gap between wages and rents that has resulted in a high percentage of persons unable to afford the Fair Market Rent.

With rising fuel, land, and operating costs; rents are anticipated to rise across the State. In August 2005, the U.S. Census also reported that the national poverty rate increased to 12.7%, from 12.5% in 2003. Nationwide, the Census reported that the median pre-tax income was $43,389, its lowest point since 1997, adjusted for inflation. With technology and global trade holding down the pay for many workers, and with rising healthcare cost, the demand for affordable housing opportunities will continue to grow. All these factors are making housing assistance more necessary.

Exhibit 25
Renters Who Cannot Afford
Fair Market Rents

Non-Metropolitan
County

Percent of Renters
Unable to Afford
FY 2003 2 BR FMR

Allegany

53%

Cattaraugus

48%

Chenango

46%

Clinton

50%

Columbia

44%

Cortland

50%

Delaware

48%

Essex

46%

Franklin

49%

Fulton

49%

Greene

46%

Hamilton

44%

Jefferson

44%

Lewis

49%

Otsego

46%

St. Lawrence

54%

Schuyler

44%

Seneca

46%

Steuben

37%

Sullivan

54%

Tompkins

57%

Ulster

54%

Wyoming

41%

Yates

43%

Inventory of Publicly-Assisted Housing

A discussion of New York State's housing resources must include consideration of the public housing portion of the State's housing inventory which includes nearly 200,000 units of affordable housing. Over the last 50 years, many units of public housing have been built with Federal financing. In addition, beginning in the 1930's, New York State has financed the construction of more than 66,000 public housing units for low-income families at a cumulative cost of nearly $1 billion. Across the State, these units, in 143 low-income housing projects owned and operated by 42 municipal authorities, were financed by $960 million in State general obligation bonds.

Of these 143 State-aided projects, 7 were subsequently removed from the public housing inventory or consolidated into other projects. An additional 62 State-financed projects were "federalized" in the 1970's and now operate under HUD regulations and oversight. The remaining 74 projects, with 21,570 apartments, continue to operate under New York State supervision.

State-supervised Public Housing

New York State supervises, but does not directly operate, 74 projects. The State provides annual operating subsidies, which currently total $24.5million, to make rents more affordable than would otherwise be possible. The affordability of this housing is also enhanced by State tax policies and agreements with localities.

Most State-supervised public housing developments are 35 to 40 years old. Many of the major systems in these projects are approaching the end of their useful lives. But, as operating costs have increased, many housing authorities have been unable to accumulate sufficient reserve funds to replace deteriorated items. In addition, a substantial portion of the State-aided public housing projects built during the post-World War II era were based on construction and housing standards that are now outdated.

As a consequence, the operating costs of these projects have risen faster than the income of their tenants. Despite State and local subsidies, operating deficits have resulted, which have eroded the reserve funds necessary to replace worn-out facilities and upgrade older projects.

The State's Public Housing Modernization (PHM) program was created in 1980 to address these problems. Only State-aided projects that are not receiving Federal assistance are eligible for this program, which provides grants to public housing projects where rental income is insufficient and funds are unavailable from other sources to undertake needed repairs and improvements. To date, State-supervised public housing projects have received more than $171 million through this program. Since 1989, grants have been allocated on a multi-year basis, permitting authorities to develop long-range plans to replace, repair or renovate physical systems.

To obtain a better overall understanding of repair and rehabilitation needs in State-assisted public housing, DHCR issued a Public Housing Modernization (PHM) program NOFA in 1989 which required that all public housing developments applying for PHM funds provide a complete physical condition survey of each development within its jurisdiction. Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) were also required to develop a five-year modernization plan to address all project deficiencies and to modernize the projects to meet current standards for habitability and comfort. As new PHM appropriations are made available, DHCR Technical staff conducts site reviews to update the comprehensive capital needs of Housing Authority projects prior to making awards.

Public Housing Initiatives

Public Housing Modernization Program

In 1990, a Physical Condition study for State Public Housing determined that the financial need was $343,000,000. Since 1990, $175,000,000 has been appropriated and awarded for improvements in State-aided public housing projects. The State and Housing Authorities have developed work plans and identified funding sources which have led to the successful upgrade and modernization of State-assisted public housing projects.For Housing Authorities with non-assisted projects, the State will work with any troubled Housing Authority which approaches DHCR to identify and obtain necessary financial and technical assistance.

During 2002, managers of Mitchell-Lama projects were sent a notice, "HUD Requirements for Reducing Lead-Based Paint Hazards - Federally-Assisted Multi-Family Housing Developments Supervised by DHCR," through which they were reminded about the HUD Lead Rule and the requirements for compliance. DHCR management representatives, during periodic field visits, will continue to provide technical assistance and will monitor housing company compliance with the HUD Lead Rule during 2005 and will assure that all related records are retained on file at the housing project.

Empire Loans for Mitchell-Lama Projects

The New York State Housing Finance Agency (HFA) continues to process Empire Loans to fund capital expenditures in Mitchell-Lama developments. A list of recommended companies has been forwarded to HFA, which include estimated costs and specific capital work, for HFA's consideration. Loans continue to be made as Empire funds become available.

Restructuring

Following the success of a pilot plan, New York State will continue its efforts to restructure State-assisted public housing projects. DHCR and the Housing Trust Fund Corporation (HTFC) will continue to work with private developers to research and develop restructuring strategies to further this initiative. Resources committed to restructuring efforts include tax credit proceeds and Public Housing Modernization Funds. The housing is privately owned, but remains affordable to low-income families and is subject to tax credit compliance monitoring. The plans for redevelopment typically include substantial rehabilitation and reconfiguration of units to meet market demands.

The following projects are being restructured by Norstar, USA:

The Sheldrake Organization has completed the comprehensive rehabilitation of Bourne and Kinney Apartments in Newburgh and Eastman and Bixby Houses in Poughkeepsie. Sheldrake is nearing completion of the comprehensive modernization of Levister Towers in Mount Vernon. Sheldrake also has contracts to undertake restructuring with the Elmira Housing Authority on Jones Court, Hawthorn Court, and Hawthorn Court Annex. Work by Omni Development commenced in 2003 with the Troy Housing Authority on Kennedy Towers. Restructurings are also planned for public housing projects in North Tonawanda and Middletown. The Potsdam Housing Authority is also undertaking a comprehensive restructuring of Racquette Acres.

Federally-assisted Public Housing

By the early 1970's, many public housing authorities (PHAs) across the country could no longer meet their development and maintenance needs with available state and local resources. To address this problem, Congress, in 1974, created the Federal Public Housing Acquisition Program to make PHAs eligible for Federal housing assistance funds "...for new construction, acquisition with substantial rehabilitation or acquisition for existing housing..." A total of 62 public housing projects, originally financed with New York State funds, were "federalized" pursuant to this program. These projects, like those originally developed with Federal new construction financing, now operate under Federal rules and are eligible for Federal funding for debt service, operating costs, and rehabilitation.

In New York City, for example, of the 335 public housing developments currently operated by the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA), 42 originally developed with State and City financing were "federalized," 18 developed with State financing were not "federalized" and remain State-supervised, 8 originally developed with New York City assistance were not "federalized," and the remaining 267 were initially developed with Federal funding and have always been subject to Federal regulation.

New York State's Federally-funded public housing inventory, like its State-supervised counterpart, is relatively old and, as a consequence, repair and replacement costs are high. For example, nearly 70% of NYCHA's Federally-funded public housing units are at least 35 years old andrecent estimates indicates that nearly $7.4 billion will be needed to fully address the modernization needs of these units. Despite pressing needs for repair, rehabilitation and replacement, however, public housing vacancy rates tend to be low (NYCHA's, for example, is less than 1%) and waiting lists long, thus indicating substantial unmet demand for this type of housing.

Assisted Housing Inventory - Section 8 Rental Assistance

The Federal Section 8 rental assistance program is designed to increase the housing choices available to very low-income households by making privately owned rental housing affordable to them. The main way it accomplishes this is by providing funding to local public housing agencies (PHAs) so that they may provide Section 8 Rental Vouchers to qualified extremely-low and very low-income households. These Vouchers provide rent subsidies that generally equal the difference between 30% of the household's adjusted income and PHA-established payment standards. The subsidies are paid directly to the landlord by the PHA.

Although a portion of Section 8 Voucher funding may be used for project-based purposes, the majority of Voucher funding is used for tenant-based assistance. All Section 8 Voucher units must be inspected by the PHA to ensure their compliance with HUD housing quality standards.

There are two basic types of Section 8 Vouchers - fair-share and special purpose. The largest portion of Vouchers is fair-share. Fair-share funding is initially awarded through a competition. Some Section 8 Vouchers are provided for a variety of special purposes, such as relocating public housing tenants that are displaced because of public housing rehabilitation, converting mixed-use public housing units to single use (that is, disabled and elderly, to elderly only), and enacting court settlements. These Vouchers are often provided as part of a competitive grant program, such as HOPE VI, Section 8 Mainstream, and Section 8 Designated Housing.

To ensure that Section 8 assistance is as widely available as possible, DHCR acts as a contractual public housing agency with HUD and operates a Statewide Section 8 Voucher Program. DHCR directly administers approximately 4,700 Section 8 Vouchers in the five boroughs of New York City. DHCR also supervises a network of Local Administrators (LAs) who directly administer an additional 28,000 Vouchers. Together, DHCR and its network of Local Administrators make Section 8 Voucher assistance available in 51 counties across the State. Approximately 16,000 landlords receive Housing Assistance Payments of $210 million annually.

DHCR's Statewide Voucher Program includes a homeownership component which has made a significant contribution to Governor Pataki's homeownership goals. DHCR's Section 8 Home Ownership Program has evolved from a small pilot program in calendar year 2000 to its current status as a national leader in Section 8-assisted home ownership closings. Since the homeownership option was implemented, 104 families have used Section 8 Voucher assistance to help them obtain and retain a home of their own.

In addition to DHCR's Statewide Section 8 Voucher Program, Section 8 Vouchers are also administered, without State supervision, by other PHAs in 171 local program areas. For example, the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA), one of two Section 8 administrators in New York City, currently administers over 90,000 Vouchers.

The very long waiting lists maintained by all Section 8 administrators across the State indicate a very strong and unmet demand for this type of assistance.

Assisted Housing Inventory - Other State-Supervised Housing

DHCR supervises 245 middle- and moderate-income housing developments containing approximately 100,000apartments. Most of these developments (i.e., 234) were built under the Mitchell-Lama program, and received a below-market-rate mortgage from the State as well as tax abatement from the municipality. Eleven developments were built under the Limited Dividend program, and received a municipal tax abatement. Through field visits and audits, DHCR supervises aspects of the operation of these developments including: management practices; maintenance and capital improvements; cash flows; and, tenant selection procedures.

In recent years, the size of the "Mitchell-Lama" inventory has decreased as a result of "buyouts," where the publicly subsidized mortgages are prepaid, and the projects are thereby removed from State or City supervision. Such prepayment is generally permitted 20 years after initial occupancy. Where buyouts occur, rents are no longer regulated under the Mitchell-Lama Program, there are no longer income limits for people moving into the housing, and limits on resale of cooperative units are removed. As a consequence, these units may become unaffordable to middle-income people.

The Demand for Housing in New York State - Availability and Cost

Between 2000 and 2004, the U.S. Census reports that the number of housing units in the State increased from 7,670,307 units to 7,819,359 units, a 1.8% increase. The median value of an owner occupied single-family housing unit was $148,700 in New York State based upon the results of the 2000 Census. This is considerably higher than the median home value of $119,600 for the nation as a whole. With respect to recent trends, between 2000 and 2003 the median value of an owner occupied single-family housing unit increased dramatically from $148,700 to $ 198,883, a 33.7% increase. In 2000, the median contract rent was also higher in New York, at $605 per month, more than the comparable rent for the nation as a whole, which was $519.

The Availability of Housing

Vacancy rates are a measure of the availability of housing. Statewide vacancy rates, calculated from 2000 Census data, were 5.5% for rental units and 1.5% for owner-occupied units. The national rates were 8.0% and 1.6% respectively in 2000. Based upon 2003 American Community Survey Estimates, Statewide vacancy rates decreased to 4.8% in 2003 for rental units and 1.4% for owner-occupied units. The rates nationally remained unchanged. This indicates a tight housing market in New York State, a trend which is likely to continue through 2005. As with housing costs, however, it should be noted that vacancy rates vary substantially among the State's multiple housing markets.

When aggregate vacancy rates for metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties were compared, the vacancy rate was lower in metropolitan counties, at 4.69%, than in non-metropolitan counties where it was 6.4%. The availability of housing varies by tenure and size of unit. In general, the vacancy rate declines as the size of the unit increases, making larger homes and apartments more difficult to find.

Since 2000, additional households in the State have been accommodated in both new and existing vacant housing units. As vacant units are occupied, vacancy rates have declined. From 2000 to 2003, the rental vacancy rate has dropped from 5.5% to 4.8%, and the owner-occupied vacancy rate from 1.5% to 1.4%. These vacancy rates are far lower than those of the nation, which were 8.0% and 1.6% respectively. In response to this imbalance between household growth and supply of available units, housing prices rose sharply in many areas of the State. These increases are reflected in the following analysis on the cost of home ownership.

The Cost of Homeownership

The cost of homeownership varies widely across the State. Exhibit 26 displays, for 2002 and 2004, the annual median sales price of existing single-family homes for counties across the State as reported by the New York State Association of Realtors.

Exhibit 26
Median Sales Price
of Existing Single-Family Homes
2002-2004

County

2002

2004

% Change

Albany

$128,700

$164,400

27.7%

Allegany

$59,925

$52,000

(13.2%)

Bronx

N/A

N/A

N/A

Broome

$74,200

$84,500

13.9%

Cattaraugus

$65,000

$68,950

6.1%

Cayuga

$74,600

$83,400

11.8%

Chautauqua

$63,200

$69,000

9.2%

Chemung

$69,000

$78,000

13.0%

Chenango

$63,000

$73,282

16.3%

Clinton

$89,900

$114,950

27.9%

Columbia

$150,000

$215,000

43.3%

Cortland

$71,900

$79,900

11.1%

Delaware

$65,000

$79,250

21.9%

Dutchess

$240,000

$300,000

25.0%

Erie

$89,900

$101,500

12.9%

Essex

$120,000

$112,000

(6.7%)

Franklin

$67,500

$74,750

10.7%

Fulton

N/A

N/A

N/A

Genesee

$78,500

$84,000

7.0%

Greene

$90,000

$139,000

54.4%

Hamilton

N/A

N/A

N/A

Herkimer

$65,000

$69,900

7.5%

Jefferson

$65,000

$76,000

16.9%

Kings

$332,500

$235,000

N/A

Lewis

$60,175

$79,700

32.4%

Livingston

$92,950

$103,700

11.6%

Madison

$90,000

$95,000

5.6%

Monroe

$103,000

$113,500

10.2%

Montgomery

$63,300

$76,320

20.6%

Nassau

$350,000

$440,000

25.7%

New York

N/A

N/A

N/A

Niagara

$76,805

$80,025

4.2%

Oneida

$69,750

$83,000

19.0%

Onondaga

$89,900

$110,000

22.4%

Ontario

$111,875

$113,000

1.0%

Orange

$195,000

$260,000

33.3%

Orleans

$64,500

$69,950

8.4%

Oswego

$67,000

$74,000

10.4%

Otsego

$76,500

$93,750

22.5%

Putnam

$307,500

$385,000

25.2%

Queens

$307,000

$420,000

36.8%

Rensselaer

$110,900

$133,000

19.9%

Richmond

$270,000

$330,000

22.2%

Rockland

$316,500

$410,000

29.5%

Saratoga

$159,925

$208,000

30.1%

Schenectady

$93,750

$123,300

31.5%

Schoharie

$77,000

$94,500

22.7%

Schuyler

$76,500

$86,750

13.4%

Seneca

$83,000

$81,250

(2.1%)

St. Lawrence

$56,000

$62,000

10.7%

Steuben

$67,500

$73,000

8.1%

Suffolk

$267,000

$355,000

33.0%

Sullivan

$91,500

$130,000

42.1%

Tioga

$83,500

$89,250

6.9%

Tompkins

$119,101

$150,000

25.9%

Ulster

$155,000

$210,500

35.8%

Warren

$122,750

$154,638

26.0%

Washington

$72,000

$88,000

22.2%

Wayne

$92,500

$97,150

5.0%

Westchester

$525,000

$640,000

21.9%

Wyoming

$73,512

$75,000

2.0%

Yates

$88,250

$87,500

(0.8%)

In 2000, the U.S. Census reported that the median value of an owner-occupied housing unit in New York State was $148,700. Based upon data from the New York State Association of Realtors, the value of owner-occupied housing varies widely across the State. In 2002, county data shows that the lowest reported median value was $56,000 in St. Lawrence County and the highest reported median home value was $525,000 in Westchester County - nearly 10 times the value of the lowest in the range. By 2004, these two counties retained their respective rank, but the median values increased to $62,000 and $640,000 respectively. In St. Lawrence County, the value increased by 10.7 % in two years, and in Westchester County the percentage increase was 21.9%.

The rising value of owner-occupied housing is placing a greater strain on affordability because median family income has only increased from $52,073 in 2000 to $59,700 in 2004, or 14.6%. Housing values in most areas of the State have increased by far more. In some counties, the affordability gap is rising sharply. This is particularly true in some suburban counties beyond the State's metropolitan regions. For example, the percent change in value of an owner-occupied unit in Ulster County increased by 35.8% between 2002 and 2004. During the same period, even more substantial increases were recorded in Sullivan County (42.1%) and Columbia County (43.3%). And in Green County, just south of the Capitol Region, the increase in value for a single-family home between 2002 and 2004 was 54.4%, the largest percentage increase for a County in the State.

Between 2002 and 2004, the median sales price of existing single-family homes has increased in most areas of the State. The sales prices are highest in the New York City metropolitan region and increases most dramatic in downstate suburban markets. In 2004, the median value of owner-occupied units was $440,000 in Nassau County, $355,000 in Suffolk County and $640,000 in Westchester County. This represents percentage increases of 25.7%, 33.0%, and 21.9%, respectively. The Counties located in the outer rim of the metropolitan region also experienced dramatic increases in housing values between 2002 and 2004. In 2004, the median value of a single-family home in Dutchess County was $300,000; Putnam County, $385,000; Orange County, $260,000; and Rockland County $410,000. The largest percentage increases were in Sullivan (42.1%), Rockland (29.5%) and Putnam (25.5%). When these home prices are compared to the median family income increases, it is clear that the gap between income and housing cost is widening.

Increases in housing values have also been substantial in many Hudson Valley counties. In the Mid-Hudson Valley, for example, the median sales price of single-family homes has increased dramatically as follows: Green County (54.4%), Columbia County (43.4%), Ulster County (35.8%), Orange County (33.3%) and Dutchess County (25.5%). Similar increases have occurred in the Capitol Region: Schenectady County (31.5%), Saratoga County (30.0%), and Albany County (27.7%). Even in counties lnorth of the Capitol Region there have been sharp increases in housing values: Clinton County (27.9%), Warren County (26.0%), and Washington County (22.2%).

Several Central New York counties have also seen a sharp increase in housing values such as Otsego County (22.5%) and Onondaga County (22.4%). Throughout the remainder of the State, increases in single-family homes have been more modest such as the increases in Erie County (12.9%), Monroe County (10.2%), Genesee County (7.0%) and Wayne County (5.0%).

Even when median home prices are high and risen sharply, opportunities do exist for first-time home buyers with low and moderate incomes. Since 1995, for example, the State of New York Mortgage Agency (SONYMA), the New York State Housing Finance Agency (HFA), and the New York State Affordable Housing Corporation (AHC) have created new affordable home ownership opportunities with single-family mortgages, multi-family mortgages and grants. Through these and other efforts, Governor Pataki has created and preserved affordable housing and opened the doors of home ownership to all New York families.

The Cost of Rental Housing

One measure of local rental housing costs is the Fair Market Rent published annually by HUD. Fair Market Rent (FMR) is gross rent estimate which includes shelter rent and the cost of utilities, except telephone. According to HUD, it sets "FMRs to assure that a sufficient supply of rental housing is available to participants in its Section 8 Rental Assistance Program". To accomplish this objective, the FMR must be both high enough to permit a selection of units and neighborhoods and low enough to serve as many families as possible.

The level at which the FMR is set is expressed as a percentile point within the rent distribution of standard quality rental housing units. The current definition uses the 40th percentile rent, the dollar amount below which 40% of standard quality rental housing rents. The 40th percentile rent is drawn from the distribution of unit rents which are occupied by recent movers (renter households who moved into their unit within the past 15 months). Newly built units less than two years old are excluded, and adjustments are made to correct for the below market rents of public housing units included in data base.

The FMR for each market area is established at the higher of the local 40th percentile rent level of the Statewide average of non-metropolitan counties, subject to a ceiling rent cap. A State minimum also affects a small number of metropolitan areas whose rents would otherwise fall below the State minimum.

Exhibit 27
Fair Market Rent (FMR)
for a 2 Bedroom Apartment
2002 - 2004

County

2002

2004

% Change

Albany

$621

$634

2.1%

Allegany

$496

$509

2.6%

Bronx

$933

$1,073

15.0%

Broome

$515

$527

2.3%

Cattaraugus

$496

$509

2.6%

Cayuga

$588

$600

2.0%

Chautauqua

$497

$509

2.4%

Chemung

$507

$518

2.2%

Chenango

$496

$509

0.5%

Clinton

$534

$548

2.6%

Columbia

$619

$635

2.6%

Cortland

$549

$563

2.6%

Delaware

$496

$509

2.6%

Dutchess

$977

$1,054

7.9%

Erie

$608

$624

2.6%

Essex

$525

$538

2.5%

Franklin

$496

$509

2.6%

Fulton

$496

$509

2.6%

Genesee

$626

$639

2.1%

Greene

$571

$586

2.7%

Hamilton

$508

$521

2.6%

Herkimer

$496

$509

2.6%

Jefferson

$548

$562

2.6%

Kings

$993

$1,073

8.1%

Lewis

$496

$509

2.6%

Livingston

$626

$639

2.1%

Madison

$588

$600

2.0%

Monroe

$626

$639

2.1%

Montgomery

$621

$634

2.1%

Nassau

$1,230

$1,324

7.6%

New York

$993

$1,073

8.1%

Niagara

$608

$624

2.6%

Oneida

$496

$509

2.6%

Onondaga

$588

$600

2.0%

Ontario

$626

$639

2.1%

Orange

$793

$855

7.8%

Orleans

$626

$639

2.1%

Oswego

$588

$600

2.0%

Otsego

$500

$513

2.6%

Putnam

$993

$1,073

8.1%

Queens

$993

$1,073

8.1%

Rensselaer

$621

$634

2.1%

Richmond

$993

$1,073

8.1%

Rockland

$993

$1,073

8.1%

Saratoga

$621

$634

2.1%

Schenectady

$621

$634

2.1%

Schoharie

$621

$634

2.1%

Schuyler

$503

$516

2.6%

Seneca

$509

$522

2.6%

St. Lawrence

$496

$509

2.6%

Steuben

$496

$509

2.6%

Suffolk

$1,230

$1,324

7.6%

Sullivan

$651

$667

2.5%

Tioga

$515

$527

2.3%

Tompkins

$663

$679

2.4%

Ulster

$754

$773

2.5%

Warren

$584

$596

2.1%

Washington

$584

$596

2.1%

Wayne

$626

$639

2.1%

Westchester

$1,196

$1,294

8.2%

Wyoming

$496

$509

2.6%

Yates

$496

$509

2.6%

As the exhibit above clearly indicates, Fair Market Rents (FMRs) vary substantially across the State. In 2004, the FMR for a 2-bedroom apartment ranged from a low of $509 a month in fourteen rural upstate counties, to a high of $1,324 in Nassau and Suffolk Counties on Long Island. Between 2002 and 2004, increases in FMRs also vary from a low of 2.0% is rural upstate counties to a 15% increase in the Bronx.

It is clear from the table that FMRs are highest in the suburban counties surrounding New York City. In 2004, for example, the highest FMRs were reported in Nassau, Suffolk, and Westchester counties, with FMRs of $1,324, $1,324, and $1,294, respectively. FMR increases between 2002 and 2004 for these counties ranged from 7.6% to 8.2%. Generally speaking, the areas of the State experiencing the greatest increases in the FMR since 2002 include the suburban Counties surrounding the five boroughs of New York City. These areas experienced an average increase of about 8.0% overall. Not only are these areas cost-burdened, but the cost burden is increasing due to escalating rent.

Fair Market Rents are also relatively high in New York City and in several Hudson Valley counties. For example, in 2004 the FMR for New York City was $1,073 the same as that reported for suburban Putnam and Rockland Counties. Dutchess County had a FMR of $1,054, very close to the New York City average. While the overall FMR rate of increase for these areas averaged around 8.0%, the Bronx was the exception. Between 2002 and 2004, the Bronx reported an increase in FMR from $933 to $1,073, a 15% increase. The high cost of housing in these areas, coupled with a dramatic rate of increase in the FMR, will only make it more difficult for people to find housing that is affordable in the years ahead.

In other Upstate metropolitan areas, the FMR in 2004 varied from a high of $639 in Monroe County (Rochester) to a low of $509 in Chautauqua County (Jamestown). In 2004, the FMR in Albany County (Albany) was $634, in Erie County (Buffalo) it was $624, and in Onondaga County (Syracuse) the FMR was $600. Between 2002 and 2004, the rate of increase in the FMR ranged from a low of 2.0% in Onondaga County to a high of 2.6% in Erie County.

Among the remaining non-metropolitan counties FMRs vary across a broad range. The highest reported FMR in this category was in Ulster County with an FMR of $773, a 2.5% increase between 2002 and 2004. The lowest FMRs were in the 14 counties where the FMR is set at the minimum level allowed, $509, which is the statewide average of non-metropolitan counties.

Fort Drum - A Unique and Dynamic Housing Market

Fort Drum is home to the Army's 10th Mountain Division and is located in rural Jefferson County, New York. In the Fall of 2004, a "third unit of action" consisting of 5,011 additional troops began arriving at Fort Drum. As of January 2005, nearly 3,211 troops had arrived with an additional 1,800 projected to arrive through December 2005.Prior to this recent influx of troops to Fort Drum, there was a housing glut in the Watertown market area. According to the 2000 Census, the rental vacancy rate in Jefferson County was 7.0 % and that for owner-occupied units was 2.2 % - well above the State and national averages. For Fort Drum's Section 801 housing developments, vacancy rates were reported to be as high as 35%. These units are now fully occupied by the influx of new troops. Military officials say that as many as 120 soldiers are commuting from the Syracuse area due to the lack of affordable and decent rental housing. In terms of the local real estate market, the average sales price of single family homes has increased from $65,000 to $76,000 from 2002 to 2004, a 16.9% increase. The Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC) has called for a further expansion of Fort Drum that may include a "fourth unit of action." With the influx of more troops, pressure on the local rental and home-ownership market will undoubtedly increase. All of these variables point to a tightening housing market in the Fort Drum Region that is a unique. Developing programs and housing policies to accommodate the expansion of Fort Drum will continue to be a focus of the State during the period covered by this Consolidated Plan.

Homeless Facilities

Section 91.310(b) Homeless Facilities

"The plan must include a brief inventory of facilities and services that meet the needs for emergency shelter and transitional housing needs of homeless persons within the State."

Overview:

This section describes programs and services that meet the emergency and transitional shelter needs and permanent supportive housing needs of homeless persons in New York State. According to the most recent Continuum of Care applications, there are currently in service:


In addition, there are currently under development:


Exhibits 28 and 29 summarize these resources by county. Detailed Information on specific resources can be obtained by contacting the appropriate local county department of social services.

Exhibit 28
Brief Inventory of Homeless Facilities for Individuals*

County

Emergency Shelter

Transitional Housing

Permanent Supportive Housing

TOTALS

Current

Future

Current

Future

Current

Future

Current

Future

Albany

166

0

395

0

473

17

1,034

17

Allegany

19

0

5

0

0

0

24

0

Broome

38

2

125

0

109

4

272

6

Cattaraugus

74

0

11

0

136

45

221

45

Cayuga

9

0

73

0

52

0

134

0

Chautauqua

61

2

101

0

741

0

903

2

Chemung

27

0

203

0

223

0

453

0

Clinton

17

0

18

0

6

12

41

12

Columbia-Greene

2

0

68

0

42

0

112

0

Dutchess

115

0

77

0

131

12

323

12

Erie

448

0

359

18

643

70

1.450

88

Franklin

4

0

0

0

135

0

139

0

Monroe

208

0

133

0

212

41

553

41

Nassau

125

0

252

0

155

74

532

74

New York City

13,690

0

3,793

250

12,100

1,397

29,583

1,647

Oneida

47

0

276

8

173

14

496

22

Onondaga

256

0

321

8

504

36

1,081

44

Orange

76

10

112

0

248

10

436

20

Orleans

2

0

4

0

0

0

6

0

Rensselaer

23

0

72

0

288

0

383

0

Schenectady

60

0

78

0

351

0

489

0

Steuben

42

0

343

0

156

10

541

10

Suffolk

420

0

145

24

260

44

825

68

Sullivan

35

0

89

0

30

0

154

0

Tompkins

42

0

10

0

75

25

127

25

Ulster

62

12

164

1

540

6

766

19

Wayne

0

0

0

0

0

7

0

7

Westchester

373

149

140

0

1,201

13

1,714

162

TOTALS

16,441

175

7,367

309

18,984

1,837

42,792

2,321

* Data Source: jurisdiction's most recent Continuum of Care application

"Current" = currently in service

"Future" = now under development

Exhibit 29
Brief Inventory of Homeless Facilities for Families with Children*

County

Emergency Shelter

Transitional Housing

Permanent Supportive Housing

TOTALS

Current

Future

Current

Future

Current

Future

Current

Future

Albany

115

0

39

0

247

25

401

25

Allegany

0

0

0

0

18

0

18

0

Broome

44

0

31

0

53

0

128

0

Cattaraugus

202

0

36

0

190

3

428

3

Cayuga

9

0

13

0

0

0

22

0

Chautauqua

11

1

25

0

870

0

906

1

Chemung

0

0

11

0

151

0

162

0

Clinton

30

0

0

0

66

0

96

0

Columbia-Greene

25

0

28

0

0

0

53

0

Dutchess

140

0

71

0

51

8

262

8

Erie

170

10

261

98

370

10

801

118

Franklin

9

0

0

0

123

0

132

0

Monroe

137

0

132

0

713

39

982

39

Nassau

165

20

204

0

359

26

728

46

New York City

17,088

0

14,322

540

4,239

963

35,649

1,503

Oneida

17

0

6

35

60

0

83

35

Onondaga

54

0

80

0

639

35

773

35

Orange

369

0

50

0

580

0

999

0

Orleans

7

0

15

0

0

0

22

0

Rensselaer

23

0

29

0

155

0

207

0

Schenectady

14

7

11

0

117

0

142

7

Steuben

0

0

0

0

7

0

7

0

Suffolk

1,573

87

301

35

1,745

126

3,619

248

Sullivan

85

0

0

0

15

0

100

0

Tompkins

6

0

17

0

0

0

23

0

Ulster

120

25

18

9

46

30

184

64

Wayne

9

0

0

0

0

12

9

12

Westchester

618

0

3,280

0

376

0

4,274

0

TOTALS

21,040

150

18,980

717

11,190

1,277

51,210

2,144

* Data Source: jurisdiction's most recent Continuum of Care application

"Current" = currently in service

"Future" = now under development

Special Needs Facilities and Services

Section 91.310(c) Special Needs Facilities and Services

"The plan must describe, to the extent information is available, the facilities and services that assist persons who are not homeless but who require supportive housing and programs for ensuring that persons returning from mental health and physical health institutions receive appropriate supportive housing."

Overview

This section describes facilities and services that assist six populations, each of which, though not homeless, has special needs for housing with supportive services:


This section includes an outline of the State response including mission statements and contact information for each population served by those agencies. It also includes a discussion of the State Response for ensuring that persons returning from mental health and physical health institutions receive appropriate supportive housing.

Elderly and Frail Elderly

The New York State Office for the Aging (SOFA) mission is to help older New Yorkers to be as independent as possible for as long as possible through advocacy, development and delivery of cost effective policies, programs and services which support and empower the elderly and their families, in partnership with the network of public and private organizations which serves them.

SOFA administers various Titles under the Federal Older Americans Act of 1965 as amended, and a variety of State-funded programs which serve the elderly. In these programs preference is given to elderly people with the greatest economic or social need, with special emphasis on meeting the needs of low income minority elderly.

The majority of programs are administered through local offices for the aging. There are 59 local offices which serve each county, the City of New York, the St. Regis Mohawk Indian Reservation, and the Seneca Nation of Indians, which includes the Cattaraugus and Allegany Reservations. These are the only Indian Reservations with offices for the aging east of the Mississippi.

Persons with Severe Mental Illness

The New York State Office of Mental Health (OMH) operates psychiatric centers across the State, and

regulates, certifies and oversees more than 2,500 programs, which are operated by local governments and non-profit agencies. These programs include various inpatient and outpatient programs, emergency, community support, residential and facility care programs.

Persons with Developmental Disabilities

The New York State New York State Office For People With Developmental Disabilities (OPWDD) mission is to coordinate and provide services for people with developmental disabilities and their families and to conduct research into the causes and prevention of developmental disabilities. OPWDD operates thirteen developmental disabilities services offices (DDSOs) responsible for providing such programs in one or more counties.

These offices provide specially designed, person-centered assistance to each individual with developmental disabilities as requested by that person or by his or her family. In partnership with consumers, families, staff, private providers and local governments, these offices improve the quality of life of individuals and their families through the provision of quality, cost-effective housing, employment and family support services. In addition, the New York State Office For People With Developmental Disabilities conducts research at its Institute for Basic Research located on Staten Island.

Persons with Physical Disabilities

Persons with physical disabilities are served by multiple State agencies including: the Commission on Quality Care and Advocacy for Persons with Disabilities (CQCAPD); the Education Department's Office of Vocational and Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities (VESID); and, the Developmental Disabilities Planning Council (DDPC).

With the Governor's approval of the 2005-2006 State Budget, the New York State Commission on Quality of Care for the Mentally Disabled (CQC) and the New York State Office of Advocate for Persons with Disabilities (OAPwD) have been merged to form a new agency, the New York State Commission on Quality Care and Advocacy for Persons with Disabilities (CQCAPD) effective April 1, 2005.

The new agency will continue to carry out the functions formerly assigned to both CQC and OAPWD, with an increased emphasis on outreach and advocacy for individuals with physical disabilities.

The mission of VESID is: to promote educational equity and excellence for students with disabilities while ensuring that they receive the rights and protections to which they are entitled; to assure appropriate continuity between the child and adult services systems; an, to provide the highest quality vocational rehabilitation and independent living services to all eligible persons as quickly as those services are required to enable them to work and live independent, self-directed lives.

VESID administers the New York State Independent Living Program under which 47 Independent Living Centers (ILC) operate within New York State. All Independent Living Centers provide core services geared toward promoting self-help, equal access, peer role modeling, personal growth, and empowerment. The scope of services is directed by individual and community needs.

The New York State Developmental Disabilities Planning Council (DDPC) is a federally funded state agency working under the direction of Governor George E. Pataki. DDPC is responsible for developing new ways to improve the delivery of services and supports to New Yorkers with developmental disabilities and their families. The Council focuses on community involvement, employment, recreation and housing issues faced by New Yorkers with developmental disabilities and their families. DDPC affects positive systems change through grant programs that fund such activities as:


To a large extent, DDPC programs are developed in direct response to the concerns and ideas voiced by consumers, families, service providers, policy-makers and other professionals.

Persons with Alcohol and Other Addictions

The mission of the New York State Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services (OASAS) is to: oversee the nation's largest and most diverse addiction system; strengthen communities, schools and families through prevention; link programs with research to improve results; and, plan for the future to improve and strengthen prevention and treatment.

Persons and their Families living with HIV/AIDS

The New York State Department of Health's AIDS Institute promotes, protects and advocates for health through science, HIV prevention and assurance of access to a coordinated system of quality health care and support services for persons with HIV/AIDS.

Most Integrated Setting Coordinating Council

Governor George E. Pataki established the Most Integrated Setting Coordinating Council to explore and recommend ways to ensure that New Yorkers with disabilities receive services in the most integrated setting appropriate to their individual needs. The Council's actions are guided by the principles set forth in the Olmstead Decision to empower individuals with disabilities to live more independently. New York State Agency Council Members:

Barriers to Affordable Housing

Section 91.310 (d) Barriers to Affordable Housing

"The plan must explain whether the cost of housing or the incentives to develop, maintain, or improve affordable housing in the State are affected by its policies, including tax policies affecting land or other property, land use controls, zoning ordinances, building codes, fees and charges, growth limits, and policies that affect the return on residential investment."

Overview

According to HUDs regulations, barriers to affordable housing may take many forms including, but not limited to, tax policies, local land use policies and federal policies. While the cost, supply and availability of housing are principally market driven, government policies and laws may affect this market by impacting employment, interest rates, and taxes. Noting that State tax policies of the past proved to be barriers to the development of affordable housing, New York has taken actions to address the situation. Since 1995, New York has cut taxes 48 times, saving New Yorkers over $28 billion. Because of these tax cuts, a two-income family of four earning $45,000 has saved $3,500 since 1995. New York has cut taxes on working families by $18 billion, and has cut business taxes 30 times.

Barriers to affordable housing include growth limits and policies that affect the return on investment as mentioned as examples in 24 CFR 91.310(d). However, they are not considered to exist as barriers in New York State and are not discussed specifically below.

Lack of Federal Resources

One of the greatest barriers to affordable housing is a lack of federal resources. New York State maximizes these limited resources by:


Zoning and Land Use Regulations

New York State's Constitution grants localities the right to determine the manner in which their communities are developed. Many localities recognize the importance of land use laws in facilitating the development of housing for persons of different economic means. New York State encourages the development of affordable housing in accordance with local zoning laws. Local housing providers should discuss zoning approvals with their municipalities early in the development process to limit delays later in the process.

Government Approvals

State agencies are working toward better coordination of federal, state and local resources. Improved communication and working relationships among all levels of government improve coordination among programs. Through discussions held by advisory boards such as the NAHA Task Force and the Partnership Advisory Committee, coordination of grant programs is being improved to develop more efficient and effective projects.

The Governor's Office of Regulatory Reform (GORR) reviews most proposed State agency rules and revisions to rules. This review seeks to ensure that regulating agencies provide sufficient, accurate information about the purposes and effects of proposed rules and that new State regulations are necessary, clearly written, non-duplicative, authorized by law, and consistent with existing laws and rules.

Additionally, State agencies continue to streamline and expedite the review process for applications. For example, the Housing Trust Fund Corporation (HTFC) has developed a simplified application for the HOME, Housing Trust Fund, Low Income Housing Credit and RESTORE programs. For the first time, HTFC recently disclosed the scoring method to the applicants and released the actual application scores.

Fees and Charges

Most fees and charges are a matter of local control and are designed to meet the needs of municipalities.

Rapidly Rising Residential Energy Costs

While most of the analysis of affordability and housing cost burden emphasizes the direct housing cost of rent or mortgage payments, energy is also an essential part of overall housing-related expenses. The overall outlay of households for energy can cause many extremely low-income households to spend more than half their income for housing plus heat and utilities. With cold winters and high energy prices in the State, heating costs are an important concern.

Tax Policies

Article XVI Section 1 of the New York State Constitution provides the power to tax rests exclusively with the Legislature. It also permits the State to enact laws delegating to local government the power to impose specific taxes. Under New York's constitution, exemptions from taxation may only be given pursuant to general laws approved by the State Legislature and the Governor. Using this procedure, New York State has enacted many laws creating mandatory and permissive exemptions from taxes on real property. Many of these exemptions are specifically directed toward enhancing the affordability of housing for the State's less affluent residents.

Under present law, many owners and developers have taken advantage of the tax exemptions offered under Sections 421-a or 488-a of the State's Real Property Tax Law (RPTL), in exchange for voluntarily placing their properties under applicable rent stabilization laws. Localities must approve the level of initial rents and develop limits that are placed on future rent increases. Under other statutes, housing designed to benefit people with special needs and low-income households, including public housing, is exempt from taxation. [New York's legislation creating tax exemptions to benefit housing affordability is described in greater detail in Strategic Plan portion of this Consolidated Plan.]

An effort to assist homeowners is evidenced in Governor George E. Pataki's School Tax Relief (STAR) Program, which was signed into law in 1997. It began by cutting school property taxes for most senior citizen home owners by an average of about 45 percent statewide. Across New York, many seniors now pay NO school property taxes because of STAR. Beginning with the 1999-2000 school year, STAR began phasing in school property tax cuts for all other homeowners, regardless of age or income. When fully implemented in school year 2001-2002, STAR cut school property taxes for non-senior homeowners by an average of about 27 percent statewide.

The New York State Constitution allows local governments to assess property taxes as authorized by the State Legislature. Property taxes, although not levied by the State, are authorized under the State Constitution, and may affect the cost of affordable housing.


Housing Discrimination

The on-going collaboration between the New York State Division of Human Rights (DHR) and DHCR based upon the joint 1997 MOUhas been enhanced by the adoption of a revised Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) originally proposed in 1985. The 1997 MOU provides a common framework through which concerns and complaints of housing discrimination, particularly in the areas of race, age, familial status, rent regulations guidelines and disability will be redressed. The revised MOU rMOU formalizesecognizes the commitment of DHR and DHCR to prevent discrimination and ensures that the coordination of resources to affirmatively further fair housing remains an open and collaborative process.

DHCR and DHR will implement the various provisions and covenants essential to promulgatingachieving fair housing and affirmatively marketing under the MOU. A copy of the MOU has been provided previously to HUD.

Impediments to Fair Housing

As part of the development of the States 1996-2000 Consolidated Plan, an Analysis of Impediments (AI) to Fair Housing Choice was conducted. The process for conducting that Analysis and the perceived impediments to choice identified by that analysis, as well as the State's actions to overcome those perceived impediments, are discussed in detail in the Analysis of Impediments previously provided to HUD.

As part of the development of New York States 20016-201005 Consolidated Plan, the State intends to review its AI once again. It is interested to determine whether municipal employees such as police officers, fire fighters, health care workers and teachers working in high cost areas in the State are being adequately served in the housing market and whether individuals with limited English proficiency are in need of technical assistance in locating housing. These are perceived, but as yet unconfirmed, impediments to fair housing. has begun the required review of its existing AI. That review process includes a survey conducted by DHCRs Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. The survey included over three hundred housing service providers, local government agencies, planning commissions, fair housing groups, housing authorities and an array of private and public housing entities.

Respondents were asked to rank twenty classifications of perceived impediments to fair housing choice along a continuum of high to low priority. Three key areas governed the highest priority rankings among respondents surveyed statewide: lack of affordable unitslack of education regarding fair housing and accessibilityneed for local governments to address local barriers, while maintaining the States position to support - not supplant - local home rule.

During the implementation of this Consolidated Plan, the State of New York will work to implement the corresponding steps as outlined in the Strategic Plan section of this document.

Last updated on 03/09/06