LAS VEGAS -- About one-third of all Americans rent their homes. And a new report from the Aspen Institute shows the pandemic-related unemployment crisis could mean eviction for more than 40% of those households without additional relief measures.

Nevada is behind only Alabama among states where renters are the most vulnerable to eviction. Other top states for vulnerable renters include Oklahoma, Louisiana and New York.

Study co-author Sam Gilman, co-founder of the COVID-19 Eviction Defense Project, said the loss of housing often ushers in serious legal consequences and suffering for families.

"It leads to children not being able to go to school, homelessness, depression and diseases of despair. An eviction upends everything in a family's life," Gilman said.

Nevada has created a rent-relief program, but the state's $30 million in assistance relies entirely on federal funds, and stimulus talks have stalled in Congress.

President Donald Trump circumvented Congress on Saturday, signing executive orders he said would deliver aid to Americans, including an eviction moratorium. But it's not clear if the orders are constitutional or substantive.

The report shows 37% of Nevada renters are at risk of eviction by the end of the year if conditions don't change. Gilman said some renters will be able to borrow money or work something out with their landlord, but eventually those options will be exhausted.

"And at that point, that's when this, pick your natural-disaster metaphor - eviction avalanche, tsunami, tornado - will continue to start tearing through and accelerating through our communities," he said.

According to Gilman, it's not just renters who will be affected, but also landlords.

"Those mom and pop landlords are also severely at risk in this rental housing crisis. Because if the renters can't pay rent, landlords can't pay their mortgages, and we could see the acceleration of a rental-housing crisis into a foreclosure crisis," he said.

Gilman noted Black and Latino Americans, who already are at greater risk of COVID-19, make up about 80% of those facing eviction.


get more stories like this via email

By Sarah Melotte for The Daily Yonder.
Broadcast version by Eric Galatas for Colorado News Connection for the Public News Service/Daily Yonder Collaboration

Migrants to Pitkin County added a quarter billion dollars to the county's Adjusted Gross Income in 2020. Pitkin's recreation economy is thriving, but what does that mean for middle- and low-income families?

Outdoor enthusiasts from all over the world visit rural Pitkin County for year-round recreation. Skiers and snowboarders flock to Aspen's world-famous slopes in the winter and the summer months bring even more opportunities for outdoor adventure. Tourists engage in hiking, tubing, rafting, kayaking, fishing, and camping in the Rocky Mountains that tower over the rural town.

From 1998-2019, industries related to travel and tourism increased 12% in Pitkin County. Some reports cite the benefits that recreation bring to a rural economy, such as economic diversification and the migration of young workers into the area. A 2018 Pew Trust analysis found that a recreation county in Montana had more high-paying full-time employment and a 29% increase in jobs from 2000 to 2015 all due to recreation. Recreation-dependent counties, which are defined by the USDA Economic Research Service (ERS) as having a certain share of their economy dependent on recreation related industries, also have lower persistent poverty levels. But the effects of recreation are complex and vary county to county.

Recreation Can Dislocate Residents

Recreation can cause dislocation, which occurs when people who can no longer afford to live in an area move, according to a recent Daily Yonder analysis.

A 2005 ERS report stated that although recreation can attract permanent residents and produce a diverse economy, it can also introduce seasonal, low- wage and low- skilled jobs while simultaneously increasing housing prices. Aspen, one of Pitkin County's resort towns, was named the most expensive neighborhood in the country in 2020.

Over 900 households migrated to Pitkin County in 2020, resulting in a net gain of $283 million in Adjusted Growth Income, when factoring in the income lost when people left the county.

The migration of high-income residents and rising costs of living, combined with the share of homes intended for seasonal use, increases housing competition in rural recreation counties. Workers from outside the county could be commuting into Pitkin County for a variety of reasons, but often it is because of an increased cost of living, said Megan Lawson, Ph.D., of Headwaters Economics in an interview.

"In non-metro counties, as the net migration rate increases by 10%, the share of wages spent on mortgages increases by 7%" Lawson wrote in a 2020 housing analysis on rural recreation communities. As Pitkin County grew 1.2% in the last decade, households struggling to pay rent increased by 3.7%.

A five-year estimate of the American Community Survey (ACS) released in 2015 found that 3,219 workers commuted to Pitkin County from Eagle County, while 4,201 workers commuted from Garfield County. ACS 5-year estimates are data collected over a 60 month period and describe the average of that period. The population in Pitkin County 16 years and older during the same collection period was about 14,911, meaning that the number of commuters into Pitkin was equal to about half the population that was of age to work.

Pitkin County has more employees that commute from outside the county than the state average. The average percentage of people who work outside their county of residence in Colorado is 22%. But only 11% of Pitkin County residents commuted outside the county for work.

Pitkin County has a lower percentage of people who commute outside the county to work than the state average, suggesting that Pitkin County has a higher share of employees that come from outside the county than other Colorado counties.

Possible Solutions

While recreation is often touted as a cure for rural poverty and economic stagnation, locals can find themselves pushed out of their homes to make space for new development. Experts suggest there are solutions to the problem. Constructing new housing priced for low-income families can reduce the burden of competition for those experiencing housing insecurity, for example.

Other solutions include revising zoning policies that regulate the supply of housing for low - income households, giving tax credits for more densely developed housing units, removing square footage requirements for units, and eliminating impact fees (fees developers pay a local government for infrastructure offsets) for affordable housing.

These solutions can be hard sells because people who own homes in a neighborhood of single family units often resist affordable housing developments, citing fears of urbanization and decreasing home values, among other things. Community development specialists suggest that circumventing a NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) attitude is easier than fighting it. Purchasing buildings for units that accept housing vouchers (instead of constructing new ones) is one approach, says former director of The National Housing Trust Michael Bodaken in an interview with Shelter Force. Some states also enact Fair Share laws that require municipalities to provide enough affordable housing for middle and low income residents or risk losing zoning and permitting privileges.

Local housing authorities and non-profits can organize to provide affordable housing as well. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) provides Pitkin County workers affordable housing by offering deed-restricted units - units that must be sold or rented to qualified individuals at an affordable price. Residents may be eligible for the bidding lottery if they have worked in Pitkin County for at least four years. APCHA also allows employers to buy affordable units to rent or sell to their full-time employees. Their interactive map shows units organized by APCHA for interested participants.

Rural recreation communities confronting the prospect of affordability issues may plan ahead to protect their long-term residents. Harvard's Joint Center for Housing Studies provides information on how communities can create incentives for affordable housing.

Methods

Recreation-dependent counties are defined using a weighted index that considers three components - 1) jobs; 2) earnings in entertainment, recreation, accommodations, food/drink, and real estate; and 3) the percentage of housing set aside exclusively for seasonal use. Recreation counties are counties with a weighted index one standard deviation or more above the mean.

The tourism data was compiled and organized by Headwaters Economics, which provides a free tool to download socioeconomic data by county. Data sources include Census Bureau, American Community Survey annual and 5-year estimates, and Zillow housing data. To review their full methods, download a report.

Sarah Melotte wrote this article for The Daily Yonder.


get more stories like this via email

Some North Dakota groups are renewing calls for the state to be more efficient in dispersing emergency pandemic rental aid. They say improvements have been made, but warn people who still need it are going without.

Last fall, North Dakota launched the online component of its Rent Help initiative, which distributes federal assistance for households facing eviction.

Sue Shirek, board chair of the North Dakota Coalition for Homeless People, said they are still hearing stories about payment delays, in some cases, prompting eviction proceedings. She acknowledged the state has acted on some concerns but thinks it should no longer be a problem.

"This is money that gets put directly in the hands of the landlord, or the utility company," Shirek pointed out. "This should be a program that benefits our state and keeps people housed. And it's just not working the way it should."

She emphasized their feedback is coming from application counselors. The state human services department said it is aware of the lingering frustration and continues to eye system upgrades. It noted the average wait times for calls to the program's contact center are much shorter. So far, North Dakota has distributed more than $42 million in rental aid.

Katie Jo Armbrust, board chair of North Dakota Continuum of Care, said with an undertaking like this, glitches are expected. But she stressed local partners wish there had been more planning to better use their intake systems as the state prepared the online portal with its vendor.

"The system and the infrastructure are certainly there," Armbrust asserted. "I think on our end, there was a little frustration or disappointment that there wasn't a better coordination with the coordinated entry system."

The groups suggest the problems almost defeat the purpose of emergency relief.

Jessica Thomasson, executive policy director for the North Dakota Department of Human Services, contended the system is especially helpful in counties with fewer resources, and countered the state isn't tuning out the feedback.

"We try to learn what we hear from the contact center," Thomasson emphasized. "We try to learn from our community partners if there's confusion."

Thomasson said other improvements include simplifying the email updates for applicants, as well as "how to" videos. After a slow rollout, data show rental-aid distribution has ticked up in recent months.

Higher mortgage rates and skyrocketing rents have fueled the nation's housing crisis. In states like Iowa, rural communities deal with the same market issues, but they point to existing efforts as a blueprint to increase access.

In the past decade, housing growth in rural areas was roughly 3%, which is far below suburban areas.

Alissa O'Connor, director of the Humboldt County Development Association, said over the years, they have established programs to help smaller towns in their area counteract housing shortages.

"We do have a very successful building trades program," O'Connor pointed out. "We utilize the high school students to construct new, or renovate existing, homes."

She noted they have purchased land to spur development in subdivisions. But groups tracking the efforts say not all areas have equal resources, and detailed planning is needed to see what fits. Rising construction costs are seen as another barrier to building more homes in rural settings.

Johnathan Hladik, policy director at the Center for Rural Affairs, said small communities also may not have as many contractors available for new development. But in his view, it should not stop local leaders from being proactive. He noted the remote-work movement is adding to competition for residents.

"This is the moment where people are interested in living in a rural area, and a community needs to do what it can to attract them," Hladik explained. "You need to have housing stock, and you need to have a good broadband. And if you combine that with good schools and a good quality of life, you're going to be in a really good spot."

There are existing government programs towns can use to help increase housing stock and attract developers.

Sara Barron, executive director of the Johnson County Affordable Housing Coalition, said a lot of federal assistance often goes to large cities, leaving a local funding gap.

"Some of that can be funded by local and county governments," Barron acknowledged. "But especially for rural, smaller communities, it really requires that state investment."