DeKalb County Housing Affordability Study

This page is intentionally blank

 DeKalb County Housing Affordability Study

Michael J. Rich, Ph.D

Moshe Haspel, Ph.D

Emory University
Policy Analysis Laboratory

Report submitted to the DeKalb County Department of Community Development

March 2022
This page is intentionally blank
 Contents

List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................. ii

List of Tables .............................................................................................................................................. vi
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. ix
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 1
Section 1. The National and Metropolitan Context .................................................................................. 7
Section 2. Recent Housing Trends in Metropolitan Atlanta .................................................................. 21
Section 3. Housing Needs and Challenges in DeKalb County .............................................................. 57
Section 4. Assisted Housing in Large Urban Counties .......................................................................... 93
Section 5. Affordable Housing Strategies in Large Urban Counties .................................................. 127
Section 6. Recommendations ................................................................................................................ 183
Appendix A ....................................................................................................................................................
Appendix B ....................................................................................................................................................
Appendix C ....................................................................................................................................................

i
 List of Figures

Figure 1. The Multiple Dimensions of Affordable Housing Policy ................................................ 2

Figure 2. U.S. Cost Burdened Households by Housing Tenure, 2001-2019 .............................. 14
Figure 3. Renter Households and Affordable and Available Rental Homes, 2019 .................... 17
Figure 4. Key Determinants of Worst Case Housing Needs ....................................................... 19
Figure 5. Total Employment in Metro Atlanta Core Counties, 1970-2019 ................................ 24
Figure 6. DeKalb County Share of Atlanta Metro Area Core County Population and
Employment, 1970-2019 ............................................................................................. 25
Figure 7. Percent of Population by Race and Ethnicity, Metro Atlanta Core Counties,
1980-2020 ................................................................................................................... 26
Figure 8. Percent of Population Non-Hispanic Black, Metro Atlanta Core Counties,
1970-2020 ................................................................................................................... 28
Figure 9. Percent of Persons with Income Below Poverty, Metro Atlanta Core Counties,
1979-2019 .................................................................................................................. 32
Figure 10. Black-White Segregation Scores for Metro Atlanta Core Counties, 1970-2020 ........ 35
Figure 11. Economic Segregation in Metro Atlanta Core Counties, 1980-2019 .......................... 36
Figure 12. S&P CoreLogic Case-Shiller Home Price Indices, Selected Metro Areas,
January 2000–September 2021, ................................................................................ 44
Figure 13. Median Home Sales Price, Metro Atlanta Core Counties, 2008-2021 ......................... 46
Figure 14. Change in Median Home Sales Price by Zip Code, Atlanta Metro Area, 2010-2021 .. 47
Figure 15. Median Home Sales Price by Zip Code, Atlanta Metro Area, 2021. ............................ 48
Figure 16. Percentage of Mortgages Delinquent, U.S. and Atlanta Metro Area, 2008-2021 ....... 49
Figure 17. Percentage of Mortgages Delinquent, Metro Atlanta Core Counties, 2008-2021 ....... 50
Figure 18. Number of Foreclosure Filings, Metro Atlanta Core Counties, 2001-2021 ................. 51
Figure 19. Metro Atlanta Average Rent by Bedroom Size and Class, 2015-2021 ....................... 53
Figure 20. Percentage of Metro Atlanta Households with Income Less Than $50,000
that are Cost Burdened, 2019 .................................................................................... 54
Figure 21. Housing and Transportation Cost Index for Metro Atlanta Households at
80 Percent of AMI, 2017 ............................................................................................. 56
Figure 22. Owner- and Renter-Occupied Housing, DeKalb County, 2019..................................... 62
Figure 23. Vacant Housing in DeKalb County, 2019 ...................................................................... 63
Figure 24. DeKalb County Net Change in Rental Units by Number of Units in Structure,
2010-2019...................................................................................................................... 65
Figure 25. Housing Problems by Tenure, 2019................................................................................ 68
Figure 26. DeKalb County Cost Burdened and Severely Cost Burdened Households
by Type, 2019................................................................................................................ 69

ii
Figure 27. Cost Burdened Renters: 30% AMI. .............................................................................. 70
Figure 28. Cost Burdened Renters: 50% AMI .................................................................................. 70
Figure 29. Cost Burdened Renters: 80% AMI .................................................................................. 71
Figure 30. Cost Burdened Renters: 100% AMI ................................................................................ 71
Figure 31. Cost Burdened Renters: Greater Than 100% AMI. ....................................................... 72
Figure 32. Cost Burdened Renters: Elderly Households ................................................................ 72
Figure 33. Emergency Rental Assistance Priority Index .............................................................. 74
Figure 34. Percentage of Rental Units Affordable by Income Category, 2000-2019 ................... 76
Figure 35. Percentage of Rental Units Affordable: 30% AMI ....................................................... 78
Figure 36. Percentage of Rental Units Affordable: 50% AMI ....................................................... 78
Figure 37. Percentage of Rental Units Affordable: 80% AMI ....................................................... 79
Figure 38. Average Rent, DeKalb County Apartments, 2019 ....................................................... 80
Figure 39. Average Rent, DeKalb County Apartments, 2021 ....................................................... 80
Figure 40. Percent Change in Average Rent, DeKalb County, 2019-2021 .................................. 81
Figure 41. The Supply of the Affordable, Available, and Adequate Rental Housing
Stock, 2015..................................................................................................................... 83
Figure 42. Gap in Affordable Housing Units, 2000-2014, DeKalb and Comparison Counties ..... 85
Figure 43. Percent of Affordable Units without Subsidy, 2000-2014 ............................................. 87
Figure 44. Percent of Owner- and Renter-Occupied Housing Units with a Physical Problem .... 89
Figure 45. Rental Units Built Before 1980 ...................................................................................... 90
Figure 46. Rental Units Built Before 1980: 1 Unit Structure ........................................................ 90
Figure 47. Rental Units Built Before 1980: 2-4 Unit Structure ..................................................... 91
Figure 48. Rental Units Built Before 1980: 5-19 Unit Structure ................................................... 91
Figure 49. Rental Units Built Before 1980: 20-49 Unit Structure ................................................. 92
Figure 50. Rental Units Built Before 1980: 50+ Unit Structure .................................................... 92
Figure 51. Housing Preservation Profile: 2021 ................................................................................ 97
Figure 52. DeKalb County Housing Developments with One or More Public Subsidies .......... 101
Figure 53. DeKalb County Employment Centers and Affordable Housing Investments ......... 103
Figure 54. DeKalb County Activity Centers and Affordable Housing Investments ................. 104
Figure 55. Housing Choice Voucher Holders as a Percentage of Rental Households, 2018 ..... 107
Figure 56. DeKalb County: Number of Housing Choice Vouchers and Vouchers as a
Percentage of Rental Units, 2021 .......................................................................... 108
Figure 57. HUD Small Area Fair Market Rents for Atlanta Metropolitan Area, 2022 ............ 109
Figure 58. CDBG Allocations, 2014-2019....................................................................................... 112
Figure 59. Cumulative HOME Funds and Units/Households Assisted, 1992-2019 . ................. 116

iii
Figure 60. Uses of NSP 1 and NSP 3 Budgeted Funds by County ............................................... 119
Figure 61. Single-Family and Multi-Family Building Permits, Metro Atlanta Core
Counties, 2000 – 2021 ................................................................................................ 122
Figure 62. Percent of Purchased Homes Bought by Investors, 2015-2021 ................................. 123
Figure 63. Percent of Purchased Homes Bought by Investors, Atlanta Metro Area, 2021 ...... 124
Figure 64. Percent of Purchased Homes Bought by Investors, DeKalb County, 2021 ............. 125
Figure 65. How a Land Bank Works ............................................................................................ 166
Figure 66. How a Community Land Trust Works ....................................................................... 181
Figure 67. Housing Affordability Challenges in Metropolitan Atlanta, Selected Occupations,
Fall 2021 .................................................................................................................. 185
Figure 68. Comparison of Low-Income Cost-Burdened Renter Households and
Affordable Rental Units at 80% AMI, 2019 ........................................................... 187
Figure 69. Eviction Filings, DeKalb County, January 2020 – January 2022 ............................ 188

Appendix B

Maps with Commission District Overlays

Map B-1 Percent of Population Nonwhite, 2015 ........................................................................ xxx
Map B-2 Percent Population Change, 2000-2015 ...................................................................... xxx
Map B-3 Change in Percent of Population Nonwhite, 2000-2015 ............................................ xxx
Map B-4 Median Household Income, 2015 ................................................................................. xxx
Map B-5 Percent Renter-Occupied Housing Units, 2015 .......................................................... xxx
Map B-6 Change in Percent Renter-Occupied Housing Units, 2000-2015 .............................. xxx
Map B-7 Percent Vacant Housing Units, 2015 .......................................................................... xxx
Map B-8 Change in Percent Vacant Housing Units, 2000-2015 ............................................... xxx
Map B-9 Percent Renter-Occupied Housing Units Built Before 1980, 2015 ........................... xxx
Map B-10 Change in Percent Renter-Occupied Housing Units Built Before 1980,
2000-2015 .................................................................................................................... xxx
Map B-11 Percent Renter-Occupied Housing Units in Structures with 2-19 Units, 2015 ....... xxx
Map B-12 Change in Percent Renter-Occupied Housing Units in Structures with 2-19
Units, 2000-2015 ....................................................................................................... xxx
Map B-13 Percent Renter-Occupied Housing Units in Structures with 2-19 Units,
Built Before 1980, 2015 .............................................................................................. xxx
Map B-14 Change in Percent Renter-Occupied Housing Units in Structures with
2-19 Units, Built Before 1980, 2015 ........................................................................ xxx
Map B-15 Median Cash Rent, 2015 .............................................................................................. xxx

iv
Map B-16 Percent Change in Median Cash Rent, 2000-2015 .................................................... xxx
Map B-17 Percent of Homeowners below 30% AMI with Cost Burden or Severe
Cost Burden, 2014 ........................................................................................................ xxx
Map B-18 Percent of Homeowners 30-50% AMI with Cost Burden or Severe
Cost Burden, 2014 ........................................................................................................ xxx
Map B-19 Percent of Homeowners 50-80% AMI with Cost Burden or Severe
Cost Burden, 2014 ........................................................................................................ xxx
Map B-20 Percent of Renters below 30% AMI with Cost Burden or Severe
Cost Burden, 2014 ........................................................................................................ xxx
Map B-21 Percent of Renters between 30 and 50% AMI with Cost Burden or Severe
Cost Burden, 2014 ........................................................................................................ xxx
Map B-22 Percent of Renters between 50 and 80% AMI with Cost Burden or Severe
Cost Burden, 2014 ........................................................................................................ xxx
Map B-23 Percent of Elderly Households with Cost Burden or Severe Cost Burden, 2014 ..... xxx
Map B-24 Percent of Owner-Occupied Housing Units with Physical Problem, 2014 ............... xxx
Map B-25 Percent of Renter-Occupied Housing Units with Physical Problem, 2014 ............... xxx
Map B-26 Housing Choice Vouchers as a Percent of Renter-Occupied Housing Units, 2017 .. xxx

Appendix C
Maps with Commission Superdistrict Overlays
Map C-1 Percent of Population Nonwhite, 2015 ........................................................................ xxx
Map C-2 Percent Population Change, 2000-2015 ....................................................................... xxx
Map C-3 Change in Percent of Population Nonwhite, 2000-2015 ............................................ xxx
Map C-4 Median Household Income, 2015 ................................................................................. xxx
Map C-5 Percent Renter-Occupied Housing Units, 2015 .......................................................... xxx
Map C-6 Change in Percent Renter-Occupied Housing Units, 2000-2015 .............................. xxx
Map C-7 Percent Vacant Housing Units, 2015 .......................................................................... xxx
Map C-8 Change in Percent Vacant Housing Units, 2000-2015 ............................................... xxx
Map C-9 Percent Renter-Occupied Housing Units Built Before 1980, 2015 ........................... xxx
Map C-10 Change in Percent Renter-Occupied Housing Units Built Before 1980,
2000-2015 .................................................................................................................. xxx
Map C-11 Percent Renter-Occupied Housing Units in Structures with 2-19 Units, 2015 ....... xxx
Map C-12 Change in Percent Renter-Occupied Housing Units in Structures with
2-19 Units, 2000-2015 ............................................................................................... xxx
Map C-13 Percent Renter-Occupied Housing Units in Structures with 2-19 Units,
Built Before 1980, 2015 .............................................................................................. xxx

v
Map C-14 Change in Percent Renter-Occupied Housing Units in Structures with
2-19 Units, Built Before 1980, 2015 ......................................................................... xxx
Map C-15 Median Cash Rent, 2015 .............................................................................................. xxx
Map C-16 Percent Change in Median Cash Rent, 2000-2015 ..................................................... xxx
Map C-17 Percent of Homeowners below 30% AMI with Cost Burden or Severe
Cost Burden, 2014 ........................................................................................................ xxx
Map C-18 Percent of Homeowners 30-50% AMI with Cost Burden or Severe
Cost Burden, 2014 ........................................................................................................ xxx
Map C-19 Percent of Homeowners 50-80% AMI with Cost Burden or Severe
Cost Burden, 2014 ........................................................................................................ xxx
Map C-20 Percent of Renters below 30% AMI with Cost Burden or Severe
Cost Burden, 2014 ........................................................................................................ xxx
Map C-21 Percent of Renters between 30 and 50% AMI with Cost Burden or Severe
Cost Burden, 2014 ........................................................................................................ xxx
Map C-22 Percent of Renters between 50 and 80% AMI with Cost Burden or Severe
Cost Burden, 2014 ........................................................................................................ xxx
Map C-23 Percent of Elderly Households with Cost Burden or Severe Cost Burden, 2014 ..... xxx
Map C-24 Percent of Owner-Occupied Housing Units with Physical Problem, 2014 ............... xxx
Map C-25 Percent of Renter-Occupied Housing Units with Physical Problem, 2014 ............... xxx
Map C-26 Housing Choice Vouchers as a Percent of Renter-Occupied Housing Units, 2017 .. xxx

List of Tables
Table 1. The Multiple Dimensions of Affordable Housing Policy ................................................. 4
Table 2. Homeownership Rates in Selected Southern Metropolitan Areas, 2015-2020 ............ 9
Table 3. Metro Atlanta and DeKalb County Rental Units by Gross Rent, 2009-2019. ............. 11
Table 4. U.S. Cost Burdened Households by Tenure and Household Income, 2010-2019 ...... 15
Table 5. Total Population and Population Change by Decade and County, 1970-2020 .......... 23
Table 6. Total Employment and Employment Change, Metro Atlanta Core Counties,
1970-2019..................................................................................................................... 24
Table 7. Measures of Income Inequality in Metro Atlanta Core Counties ............................... 37

Table 8. S&P CoreLogic Case-Shiller Home Price Indices, Composite 20 Metropolitan

Areas, 2000-2021 ........................................................................................................ 45
Table 9. Percentage Change in Metro Atlanta Average Rent by Bedroom Size and
Class, 2015-2021 ....................................................................................................... 52
Table 10. Selected Characteristics of DeKalb County and Comparison Counties ..................... 60

vi
Table 11. Distribution of DeKalb County Rental Housing by Year Built and Number of
Units in Structure, 2010-2019 ...................................................................................... 64
Table 12. Extremely Low-Income Renter Households and Adequate, Affordable, Available
Rental Units by County, 2000-2014 .............................................................................. 86
Table 13. Publicly Supported Rental Units by Program, 2021 ................................................... 96
Table 14. DeKalb County Properties with Expiring Housing Subsidies Within the Next
Ten Years ....................................................................................................................... 98
Table 15. Distribution of Rental Housing Units in DeKalb County with Subsidy by Area,
2021
Table 16. Neighborhood Stabilization Program Funding Awards by County............................ 102
Table 17. Housing Production Strategies by County .................................................................. 118
Table 18. Housing Preservation Strategies by County ............................................................... 131
Table 19. CDBG Expenditures and HOME Commitments for Housing Rehabilitation/
New Construction by County. ................................................................................... 163
Table 20. Principal Regulatory Strategies for Addressing Distressed Property Investors ....... 172
Table 21. Incentive Strategies for Landlords ............................................................................... 174
Table 22. Potential Incentives Cities Can Offer in a Landlord Incentive Program .................. 175
Table 23. Asset-Building Strategies ............................................................................................ 178
Table 24. Cost Burdened Households in DeKalb County by Income, 2018 ............................... 184
Table 25. Permitted Uses of SLFRF Dollars to Support Housing Programs ........................... 192
Table 26. Policy Tools Available to Local Governments to Influence Housing Outcomes ...... 196

Appendix A
Table A-1. HUD FY 2021 Income Limits, DeKalb County, GA. ................................................... 213
Table A-2. HUD FY 2021 HOME Income Limits, DeKalb County, GA ....................................... 213
Table A-3. Variables Used in Cluster Analysis to Identify Comparison Counties ..................... 214
Table A-4. HUD Small Area Fair Market Rents, DeKalb County Zip codes ............................. 215

Appendix B
Table B-1 DeKalb County Population Characteristics, Commission Districts and
Superdistricts, 2000-2015 ......................................................................................... xxx
Table B-2 DeKalb County General Housing Characteristics, Commission Districts and
Superdistricts, 2000-2015 ......................................................................................... xxx
Table B-3 DeKalb Year Housing Structure Built, Commission Districts and Superdistricts,
2000-2015 .................................................................................................................... xxx

vii
Table B-4 DeKalb County Owner-Occupied Housing: Units in Structure by Year Built,
Commission Districts and Superdistricts, 2000-2015 ............................................. xxx
Table B-5 DeKalb County Renter-Occupied Housing: Units in Structure by Year Built,
Commission Districts and Superdistricts, 2000-2015 ............................................. xxx
Table B-6 DeKalb County Median Cash Rent, Commission Districts and Superdistricts,
2010-2015 .................................................................................................................... xxx
Table B-7 DeKalb County Owner-Occupied Households with Cost Burden or Severe Cost
Burden, Commission Districts and Superdistricts, 2014 ........................................ xxx
Table B-8 DeKalb County Renter-Occupied Households with Cost Burden or Severe Cost
Burden, Commission Districts and Superdistricts, 2014 ........................................ xxx
Table B-9 DeKalb County Households with Housing Problems by Type and Tenure,
Commission Districts and Superdistricts, 2014 ....................................................... xxx

viii
Executive Summary

Introduction
This report was commissioned by the DeKalb County Department of Community Development to
assist the county officials and other interested stakeholders in gaining a deeper understanding of the
affordable housing challenges in DeKalb County. The key objectives for the report were to: 1) assess
the contemporary housing context as it pertains to affordable housing, beginning with the nation,
moving to the Atlanta metro area, and then discussing DeKalb County in particular; 2) examine the
policy responses that have been taken in DeKalb County, with an emphasis on benchmarking the
county’s programs and strategies with those in comparable large urban counties in the Southeast; 3)
identify selective innovative practices other jurisdictions across the nation, particularly urban
counties, have taken to meet their affordable housing needs; and 4) offer a set of specific
recommendations for DeKalb County to consider in moving forward to address its affordable housing
needs and opportunities.
The county engaged Emory University’s Policy Analysis Laboratory, directed by Professor Michael J.
Rich, to prepare the report based on Emory’s experience in completing similar analyses for the
county over the past several years. These efforts have including assistance with the preparation of
the county’s five-year HUD Consolidated Plan, its application for Neighborhood Stabilization
Program funding, and the design and creation of the DeKalb Sustainable Neighborhoods Initiative,
among others. The PAL has also completed studies on public housing revitalization for Atlanta
Housing and the Housing Authority of Fulton County.
The research conducted for this report involved the review of several recently completed studies on
affordable and workforce housing in DeKalb County as well as documents and data made available
from several county departments and agencies. Many national studies and reports on affordable
housing were also examined and incorporated into the analysis. To provide a more granular view of
affordable housing needs and opportunities in DeKalb County, the study also compiled data from
several nationally available sources such as the American Community Survey, the U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development’s Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (special
tabulations of the ACS data), other HUD data sets, and the National Housing Preservation
Database, among others. The study also utilizes current data on housing markets derived from
ApartmentData.com, a private research firm that tracks multifamily rental markets in more than a
dozen major metro areas, including Atlanta, and the Georgia First Multiple Listing Service.
In thinking about affordable housing solutions in DeKalb County, one needs to be attentive to the
multiple dimensions of the affordable housing problem(s) and the complexity of the policy
environment in which solutions must be implemented. Among the choices local communities must
navigate include the following:
1. Housing tenure. Should the policy response focus on home ownership, rental housing,
vacant housing, or some combination of these?
2. Sectors. What sectors should be engaged in the design and implementation of the policy
response—public (federal, state, local), private, nonprofit, community?

ix
3. Intensity of treatment—what intensity of treatment will be required?
Maintenance/preservation, rehabilitation, or redevelopment?
4. Policy Tools—what are the primary (financial, regulatory, planning, education and
outreach) and secondary policy areas (education, workforce development, economic
development, transportation and land use, etc.) that should be incorporated into the policy
response?
5. Target Population—what target population(s) should be served—extremely low income,
very low income, low income, workforce housing, elderly, family, special needs populations?
6. Geography—what geographic area(s) should be served—countywide, unincorporated areas,
low- and moderate-income census tracts, special target areas (e.g., enterprise zones, DeKalb
Sustainable Neighborhood Clusters, etc.), employment centers, activity centers, job clusters,
one or more neighborhoods, etc.?

The National and Metropolitan Context

Home Prices. Real home prices steadily increased over the past decade, rising by more than
nine percent during 2021. Nationally, home prices at the end of 2021 were two percent above
their peak in the mid-2000s and 60 percent above their base level in 2000.
Housing Construction. Housing construction in 2020 picked up strongly in the second half of
the year, ending with 1.38 million housing starts, the highest level since 2006. Despite the
increasing rates of housing production, the new supply still falls about 3.8 million units below
the level needed to meet long-term demand.
Homeownership Rates. After more than a decade of steady declines, homeownership rates
began to tick upward in 2016. Despite the gains in overall homeownership over the past few
years, the racial disparities in home ownership have widened, due in part to the pandemic which
has left many homeowners, particularly people of color and/or those with low incomes, at risk.
Homeownership rates in metropolitan Atlanta increased 4.7 percentage points over the last five
years, rising from 61.7 percent in 2015 to 66.4 percent in 2020, slightly above the national rate
for metropolitan areas
New Rental Housing Favors High End of the Market. The accelerated pace of multifamily
construction is being driven by strong demand for rental housing from higher-income
households. In metropolitan Atlanta, more than 80,000 units of multifamily housing renting at
or below $800 per month was lost between 2009 and 2019; the share of such units declined from
36 percent in 2009 to 16 percent in 2019. More than half of DeKalb County’s low-rental housing
stock was lost between 2009 and 2019.
Rental Markets. The pandemic disrupted rental markets during 2020, but most markets
rebounded strongly in 2021 as evidenced by near record low vacancy rates and sharp rises in
rents. Asking rents in professionally managed apartments increased sharply in 2021, with year-
over-year annual rent growth rising from 1.7 percent in the first quarter of 2021 to 10.9 percent
in the third quarter. Atlanta ranked ninth among the top 30 metro areas in year-over-year rent
growth for all asset classes in 2021.
Cost-Burdened Households. Even after ten years of economic expansion and the lowest
unemployment rate in decades, the share of renter households with cost burdens in 2019 was
down just four percentage points from the 2011 high. Since 2010 two important trends have
emerged: First, the number of cost-burdened renter households now exceeds the number of cost-

x
 burdened owner households; Second, the affordability challenge is creeping up the income ladder
with more moderate-income renter households becoming cost-burdened.
Quality of the Housing Stock. Renter households (7.4%) were more than twice as likely to live
in inadequate housing as were homeowners (3.3%). While the prevalence of housing with
physical problems is generally low, lower-income renter households are more likely to experience
housing problems
The Affordable Housing Stock. Only about one in four households eligible for housing
assistance receive it. Nationwide in 2019, there were only 37 affordable and available rental
homes for every 100 extremely low-income households (30% AMI), 60 units for every 100 very
low-income households (50% AMI), and 94 units for every 100 low-income households (at 80%
AMI).

Recent Housing Trends in Metropolitan Atlanta

Historical Trends
Population. According to the 2020 decennial census, metro Atlanta currently includes 29 counties
with a total population of 6.1 million. Though the population of both Fulton and DeKalb counties
increased in 2020, only about three out of every ten residents in metropolitan Atlanta resided in
those counties. DeKalb County’s share of the population in the five core metro counties declined
from 30 percent in 1970 to 20 percent in 2020, with the sharpest declines occurring between 1970
and 1990.
Employment. A similar decentralization trend has occurred regarding employment. In 2019 , the
share of jobs in Fulton and DeKalb counties had declined to less than half (46%) of all jobs in the
metro area and to about six out of ten jobs (59%) in the five core counties. DeKalb County’s declining
shares of metro Atlanta’s population and jobs are due not only to the higher growth rates recorded by
the region’s outlying counties, but also to DeKalb’s slower growth in population and jobs compared to
the region’s original five core counties
Race and Ethnicity. Metro Atlanta’s five core counties have become more diverse and the
geographic distribution of racial and ethnic group residences also decentralized. The 2020 census
shows that the number of majority Black census tracts continued to increase in the five-core counties
with the additions found in Clayton, Cobb, and Gwinnett counties whereas the number of majority
Black census tracts in DeKalb and Fulton counties declined by about four percent during this same
period.
Poverty. Nationally, poverty rates began to turn in 2014 and according to the Census Bureau’s
most recent annual report on income and poverty, declined to 10.5 percent in 2019, which was the
lowest poverty rate since estimates were published in 1959. For the five core counties in Metro
Atlanta the ACS five-year estimates show the number of high poverty census tracts declined from 93
in 2006-2010 to 69 in 2015-2019, a decline of 25.8 percent. In DeKalb County, the number of high
poverty tracts declined from 17 to 14 during that same time period.
Racial and Economic Segregation. Despite the dramatic demographic and economic
transformation of the Atlanta metropolitan area over the past 50 years, large racial and class
disparities remain and are deeply rooted in the geography of metro Atlanta. The level of residential
segregation in metro Atlanta remains high—particularly in the core counties of Fulton and DeKalb—
which in turn exerts strong influence on the types of neighborhoods people live in and the access to
opportunities—housing, education, jobs and services—those neighborhoods provide.

xi
Current Trends
Economic Growth. Metropolitan Atlanta’s recovery from the Great Recession, which officially
ended in 2010, has been strong, but trails many other metro aras in the South. Real growth in gross
domestic product increased 32.5 percent between 2010 and 2020 in metro Atlanta, which was the
sixth highest increase among the nation’s top 20 metro areas and 13th largest increase among the top
50 metro areas. The region’s economic performance has recently begun to accelerate as employment
in the region in early 2022 approached pre-pandemic levels. While the region has traditionally
lagged other metros in earnings per job, the gap has narrowed.
Home Prices. Housing in the metro Atlanta region is very affordable compared to other
metropolitan areas and the national average. According to a recent analysis by the Atlanta Regional
Commission, Atlanta ranks second in housing affordability compared to the region’s peer metro
areas. Over the past eight years home sales price in the five metro Atlanta core counties have
followed similar trajectories. Home prices in DeKalb County increased by 16.9 percent during
calendar year 2021 according to Georgia FMLS data and at the end of 2021 were 47 percent higher
than prices in 2017 and three times as high as the median price of home sales in April 2012, the
trough of the Great Recession for most metro Atlanta counties.
Mortgage Delinquencies and Foreclosures. Atlanta was one of the metropolitan areas hit
hardest by the foreclosure crisis that began to attract national attention in the mid-2000s.
Beginning in 2010 delinquency and foreclosure rates began to fall and by 2015 had converged with
national rates. As a result of the federal moratorium issued during the pandemic, foreclosure filings
in the five core Atlanta metro counties continued to converge and approached zero by the end of
2021.
Rent Trends. According to a recent report by the National Low Income Housing Coalition, the fair
market rent for a two-bedroom apartment in metro Atlanta was $1,185 in 2021, which would require
an hourly wage of $22.79 to be affordably housed, equivalent to three full-time jobs at minimum
wage. While rent increases averaged in the range of four to six percent annually between 2015 and
2020, rents in metro Atlanta on average were 20 percent higher at the end of 2021 as compared to
the end of 2020 according to an analysis of data provided by one company tracking the Atlanta rental
market.
Cost Burdened Households. Overall, about one out of three households in metro Atlanta paid
more than 30 percent of their household income for housing in 2019 according to the 2019 five-year
estimates from the American Community Survey. 1 About one out of five homeowners (21%) and
nearly half (49%) of renter households were cost burdened in 2019. The prevalence of housing cost
burdens was much greater for households with income less than $50,000 (about 83% of the metro
area median). Overall, seven out of ten low-income households were cost burdened in 2019; half of
low-income owner households and more than eight out of ten low-income renter households were cost
burdened in metro Atlanta in 2019.

1 Analysis of U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey, 2019 1-Year Estimates.

xii
 Housing Needs and Challenges in DeKalb County
Housing Units. The total number of housing units in DeKalb County increased 19 percent between
2000 and 2019, which was the smallest increase among the metro Atlanta core counties and
exceeded the growth rate in only two of the six comparison counties (Jefferson, AL, and Prince
George’s, MD). The proportion of renter-occupied housing units increased from 41.5 percent in 2000
to 45.4 percent in 2019 while owner-occupied housing units declined from 58.5 percent to 54.6
percent. The median value of owner-occupied homes in DeKalb County was $215,600 in 2019, which
was seventh highest among the 11 comparison counties.
Vacant Housing. DeKalb County’s housing vacancy rate in 2019 (9.4%) was the third lowest
among the five metro Atlanta core counties, trailing Gwinnett (5.1%) and Cobb (6.6%). The largest
number of vacant housing units are found in census tracts in Southwest DeKalb and Dunwoody.
Rental Housing. Over the last twenty years the county’s rental housing stock has been
substantially transformed. In 2000, the county’s rental market was predominantly found in small
apartment buildings (61%) with 19 percent single-family rentals and 19.7 percent in large apartment
buildings. By 2019 less than half of the county’s rental units were in small apartment buildings
(44%) whereas single family rentals had increased their share to 30 percent and large apartment
buildings now account for one out of every four rental units.
Rents. Overall, the average rent in DeKalb County rose 23 percent between 2019 and 2021. The
largest percentage increases during this period occurred in the central areas of DeKalb County,
generally encompassing the area north of I-20 and outside I-285 as well as the Belvedere Park and
Candler-McAfee areas inside I-285, which are the areas that had the lowest average rents in 2019.
Cost Burdened Households. Overall, one out of three (35%) DeKalb households had a housing
affordability problem with about one out of five reporting a cost burden and 16 percent a severe
housing cost burden in 2019. The prevalence of housing affordability problems is highest among
lower income households. About eight out of ten extremely low income (30% AMI) and very low-
income (50% AMI) households in DeKalb County were housing cost burdened. Nearly 70 percent of
extremely low-income households were severely cost burdened. More than half of low-income
households (80% AMI) were housing cost burdened in 2019.
Declining Affordable Housing Stock. The share of affordable rental units has steadily declined
in DeKalb and most of the other comparison counties between 2000 and 2019. In DeKalb, the
proportion of affordable rental units for low income households (80% AMI) declined from 93 percent
in 2000 to 80 percent in 2019; the share of affordable rental units for very low income households
declined 54 percent to 34 percent and the share of affordable apartments for very low income
households declined from eight to six percent over the same period.
Housing Units with Physical Problems. The proportion of rental housing units with only a
physical problem was 5.2 percent in DeKalb County in 2019, which placed it in the middle of the
distribution among the 11 counties examined. The census tracts with the greatest concentrations of
rental housing with physical problems are generally found in the northern and central areas of the
county.

Assisted Housing in Large Urban Counties

Assisted Housing. In DeKalb County, about one out of six rental units (22,203, 17.3%) had a tenant
or unit-based subsidy. Among the comparison counties the proportion of subsidized rental units
ranged from a low of 6.7 percent in Fort Bend County to a high of 27.4 percent in Fulton County.

xiii
More than eight out of ten rental units with a unit-based subsidy in DeKalb County were assisted
under the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program and about one out of four assisted units
with a unit-based subsidy received a HUD Section 8 or Project-Based Rental Assistance subsidy. The
proportion of rental units with a tenant-based subsidy (Section 8/Housing Choice Vouchers) in
DeKalb County was 5.9 percent; only Fulton County (9.3%) and Jefferson County (7.9%) had higher
rates of tenant-based subsidy.
Almost half (49.7%) of the county’s assisted housing with a unit-based subsidy is in the area south of
Interstate 85 and inside Interstate 285. The area south of I-85 and outside I-285 also has a sizeable
share of the county’s subsidized housing and together these two regions of the county account for
nine out of every ten rental units with a subsidy (90%), although the two areas only account for
about three-fourths (77%) of the county’s rental units.
Assisted Units at Risk of Loss. In DeKalb County, the rate of subsidized homes at risk is more than
twice the national rate, with one out of four publicly supported homes (24%) facing an expiring
subsidy within the next 10 years if their subsidies are not renewed; about two-thirds of all subsidized
units will be lost in the next 20 years unless their subsidies are renewed.
CDBG. DeKalb County allocated the smallest share of its Community Development Block Grant
funds for housing over the period 2014-2019 (less than 6% each year) among the 11 counties included
in the analysis, which was well below the national average for entitlement communities which
averaged about 28 percent during this period. The county’s largest CDBG-funded activity category during
this period was public facilities and improvements which accounted for about half of all CDBG expenditures.

HOME. DeKalb County has the second largest cumulative award of funds under HUD’s housing
block grant program over the period 1992-2019 ($59.6 million) and was the only county in the study
that pursued a relatively balanced strategy for deploying its HOME funds with the largest activity
being rental housing development (35%) followed by homebuyer assistance (33%), owner-occupied
housing rehabilitation (27%), and tenant-based rental assistance (5%).
Neighborhood Stabilization Program. DeKalb County received the second-largest amount of funding
under HUD’s NSP program ($34 million) among the 11 counties in the analysis. DeKalb again
stands out among the study counties regarding its strategic use of NSP funds as it was the only
county that had NSP expenditures in all five activity categories: purchase and rehabilitation (61%)
and funding mechanisms (17%) were the two largest categories of expenditure.
Investor-Owned Housing. The sharp rise over the past few years in housing purchases by investor
owners has further exacerbated the gap in available, adequate, and affordable units. A recent
analysis by the Washington Post found that one out of every four homes sold in 2021 in metro
Atlanta and Charlotte were investor purchases, highest among the 40 metro areas included in the
analysis.

Affordable Housing Strategies in Large Urban Counties

Housing Production Strategies
Housing Trust Funds. Housing trust funds were first established in the 1970s in California and
Maryland and the number of housing trust funds grew slowly during the 1980s and early 1990s.
Over the past 16 years, the number of housing trust funds has more than doubled, rising from about
300 in 2005 to more than 820 in 2021. There were 69 county housing trust funds in 17 states and
these county trust funds generated more than $200 million in 2021. All 11 counties in the analysis
are in states that have state housing trust funds and three counties—Polk, Volusia, and Prince
George’s—have county housing trust funds.

xiv
 Inclusionary Zoning Policies. Inclusionary zoning ordinances, sometimes called inclusionary
housing, is a regulatory tool used by county and city governments to increase the supply of affordable
housing within new market rate developments. The first inclusionary zoning ordinance was adopted
by Fairfax County, Virginia, in 1971. As of 2019, there were more than 1,000 jurisdictions with
inclusionary housing programs in 31 states and the District of Columbia including more than 40
counties. Prince George’s is the only county included in the analysis with an inclusionary housing
program though several counties (or their municipalities) are actively considering the adoption of an
inclusionary housing ordinance.
Low Income Housing Tax Credits. The Low Income Housing Tax Credit, created in 1986, is the
primary federal program used to develop affordable rental housing. According to HUD, the LIHTC
program provides the equivalent of nearly $8 billion in annual budget authority to state agencies for
affordable housing. All 11 counties in the analysis have LIHTC projects and the share of assisted
housing units with LIHTC subsidies ranges from about one third in Jefferson County to more than
75 percent in DeKalb, Clayton, Cobb, Fulton, and Fort Bend counties.
Workforce Housing. Workforce housing first began to appear in the early 2000s and generally
referred to the need for housing for teachers, police officers, fire fighters, emergency service workers,
and nurses, among others, to live affordably in the communities where they worked. Though
definitions varied widely from community to community, the income of these workers generally
ranges between 60 and 120 percent of the areawide median income, and in some communities, go as
high as 150 percent of AMI. About half of the counties in the study, including DeKalb, have taken
some specific action to encourage the development of workforce housing in their jurisdictions and two
more are actively considering a workforce housing initiative.

Housing Preservation Strategies

Rent Control. Rent control strategies were most widely used between the late 1960s and early 1980s,
particularly in communities with very tight housing markets. As rents have recently soared across
the country, many jurisdictions have begun to revisit rent control as an affordable housing strategy.
Only one of the 11 counties included in the analysis has had any experience with rent control (Anne
Arundel).
Short Term Rentals. The rapid growth of home sharing and short-term rentals (STRs) through
web-based platforms such as Airbnb and VRBO has generated intense public debate concerning their
effects on local housing markets. In response to these concerns, some communities have passed laws
or ordinances that ban or limit short-term rentals. Five counties included in the study have seen
their county or municipal governments take action short-term rentals: Polk, Prince George’s,
Clayton, DeKalb (City of Brookhaven), and Fulton (City of Atlanta).
Code Enforcement. Enforcement of local housing codes is a regulatory strategy used by local
governments to preserve their housing stock. While code enforcement can be an effective housing
preservation strategy, it often requires a companion housing assistance program (e.g., rehabilitation
loans or grants) to prevent the loss of affordable units or the displacement of low-income tenants
(affordability restrictions or tenant-based rental assistance). All 11 counties included in the analysis
have code enforcement programs.
Housing Rehabilitation Loans and Grants. Many local jurisdictions have established CDBG- and
HOME-funded rehabilitation loan and/or grant programs. Grant programs are usually reserved for
very low-income homeowners and/or the elderly. Loan programs generally offer below market
interest rates and provide a steady stream of income for jurisdictions as the loan repayments
(principal and interest) are considered program income, which allow for additional rehabilitation

xv
loans to be made. All 11 counties included in the study have allocated CDBG funds for single-family
housing rehabilitation programs and seven of the 11 counties have awarded more than half of their
HOME funds for single-family housing rehabilitation; four counties, including DeKalb, have spent
more than half of their HOME funds on multi-family housing rehabilitation.
Preservation of Federally Subsidized Housing. Initially, the preservation of federally-subsidized
housing was largely a federal strategy though today state and local governments have taken
increased responsibility for addressing the preservation of federally-subsidized housing. Only one of
the 11 study counties, Prince George’s, has taken specific programmatic action to preserve its supply
of federally-subsidized housing.
Land Banks. Land banks are public or nonprofit corporations created for the purpose of returning
vacant, abandoned, and tax delinquent properties into productive use. Only four of the study
counties—Clayton, DeKalb, Fulton, and Jefferson—have used land banks and land banking as a
housing preservation strategy.
Tax Relief. The clear majority of state and local governments provide some type of property tax relief
for elderly homeowners and for lower-income home owners who live in their homes for some specified
period of time. All eleven counties in the study have state property tax relief programs and most also
supplement that assistance with additional homestead exemptions, credits, or rebate programs.
Most counties help with the elderly, disabled, and veterans. A few counties provide additional
property tax relief for low-income homeowners.

Asset Building Strategies

Family-Self Sufficiency (FSS). The FSS program, created in 1990, is designed to increase the earned
income of HUD-assisted families and reduce their dependence on public assistance and HUD rental
subsidies. Nine of the 11 counties included in the analysis (all but Gwinnett and Fort Bend) have a
county or municipal housing authority participating in HUD’s FSS program.
Homeownership Education and Counseling. There are many public, private, and nonprofit
organizations that provide homeownership education and counseling programs to assist potential
homebuyers making informed decisions about homeownership and in navigating the home-buying
process. All eleven counties included in the analysis have homebuyer education and counseling
programs available for first-time homebuyers.
Homebuyer Assistance. A variety of federal, state, and local programs provide financial assistance
designed to increase home ownership. All fifty states have some type of home buyer program, though
the number of programs, their target populations, and types of financial incentives available vary
widely. The share of HOME funds (1992-2019) used to support homebuyer programs ranges from
about 10 percent in Fulton County to more than 85 percent in Clayton and Gwinnett counties;
DeKalb County has spent 33 percent of its cumulative HOME funds on homebuyer assistance
Cooperative Housing. A housing cooperative is a form of housing tenure in which people come
together to own and control the buildings they live in. The residents purchase shares in the
cooperative and pay a monthly fee to cover the property’s operating expenses. Seven of the eleven
counties included in this analysis, including DeKalb, have at least one cooperative housing
community in their county.
Community Land Trusts. Community Land Trusts are private nonprofit organizations that acquire
and hold land for community benefit. Many CLTs were created to promote affordable housing
ownership opportunities. In this scenario, the CLT permanently retains ownership of the land, and

xvi
the homeowners own the housing. Only three of the counties included in the analysis have a
community land trust: Fulton (City of Atlanta), Jefferson, and Prince George’s.
Section 8 Homeownership Program. The Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 gave
public housing authorities permission to provide a homeownership option to families that receive
Section 8 tenant-based or Housing Choice Voucher assistance. Eight of the 11 counties included in
the analysis currently have at least one low income family assisted through their housing authority
or a municipal housing authority enrolled in the Housing Choice Voucher Homeownership Program.
Prince George’s County had the largest number of families (80) enrolled in 2021 followed by DeKalb
County (43).

Summary
Several trends and themes emerge from this analysis of affordable housing challenges and
opportunities in DeKalb County. Five warrant emphasis and have implications for how the county
should move forward in addressing its affordable housing problems.

1. The major housing problem confronting low- and moderate-income

households in DeKalb County—and many households at or near the areawide
median income—is housing affordability.
According to the most recent data available at the time of this study, almost half of DeKalb
County renter households had a housing affordability problem with 25 percent reporting a
cost burden (30% or more of household income for housing) and 23 percent a severe cost
burden (50% or more of household income for housing). Overall, more than one out of
three DeKalb households—owners and renters—were housing cost burdened in 2018.
Hispanic, Black, and Asian householders were more likely to report a housing affordability
problem than were non-Hispanic Whites.

2. The pandemic, accompanying economic slowdown, and recent resurgence will

likely increase the number of households facing housing cost burdens.
Much of the data in this updated report is pre-pandemic. Over the past year we have seen
dramatic increases in housing prices, both home purchases and rents. The federal eviction
moratoriums have ended and the volume of evictions in DeKalb County have begun to move
closer to their baseline pre-pandemic levels, which averaged about 3,000 filings per month,
about twice the level of filings per month during the 12 months of the CDC’s eviction
moratorium (Figure 69). Though emergency rental assistance funds continue to be
available, they will fall far short of meeting the demand for assistance and not nearly
enough to permanently shore up vulnerable households facing housing instability. Similar
trends can be found with foreclosure data.
3. A substantial share of the county’s affordable housing stock—subsidized and
unsubsidized—is at risk of loss over the coming decade.
There are about 22,000 renter households in DeKalb County receiving some type of federal
subsidy as of December 2021. The rate of subsidized homes at risk of loss in DeKalb
County, however, is more than twice the national rate, with one in four publicly supported
homes (24%) facing an expiring subsidy within the next 10 years compared to only 10
percent nationally. Regarding “naturally occurring” affordable housing (i.e., market rate
units that are affordable), DeKalb County has been particularly hard hit by the loss of
smaller apartment buildings over the past 10 years, many of which had provided affordable
rents to low- and moderate-income households. Between 2010 and 2019, about 4,500 rental

xvii
 units in buildings with 2-19 units were lost and their share of the rental market declined
from 55 percent to 44 percent.
Moreover, the availability of affordable rentals in DeKalb County has shrunk considerably
over the last decade, due largely to the loss of more than 28,000 rental units with rents
under $1,000 and an increase of nearly 43,000 units with rents of $1,000 or more. In
addition, the long-term rental market has also been hit hard over the past few years by an
increasing volume of investor-owned housing purchases and short-term rentals. A recent
analysis by the Washington Post found that Atlanta and Charlotte had the highest rates of
investor home purchases in 2021, one of every four home sales, among the 40 metropolitan
areas included in their analysis. Another recent study reported that investors purchased a
majority of all homes sold in 2021 in six DeKalb County zip codes, all of them majority
Black areas.

4. Federal housing assistance for low- and moderate-income households declined

substantially over the past decade, though funding has increased in the last
two years in response to the pandemic.
Federal outlays for low-income housing and community development programs
declined by 21.3 percent in nominal terms between 2010 and 2019, 33.3 percent in
constant dollars. Tax expenditures in support of housing assistance were also hit hard
during this period. One consequence of these funding cuts is that the total number of low-
income households receiving housing assistance through the federal government’s rental
assistance programs, which has held fairly steady at around five million households since
2001, has dropped from 4.9 million households in 2010 to 4.6 million households through
the end of FY 2020 based on HUD’s most recent annual performance report.
The pandemic and the federal government’s response have brought considerable new
federal resources to shore up the ability of state and local governments to meet the needs of
their most vulnerable residents. Perhaps most notable, the American Rescue Plan, passed
in March 2021, provides $350 billion in federal aid to state and local governments through
State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) that can be used to address a wide range of
problems, including housing affordability. The SLFRF dollars are more flexible than
traditional federal grants and can be used for programs or services to support long-term
housing security including development of affordable housing and permanent supportive
housing. Federal funding for conventional housing and community development programs,
have also increased, rising by 76 percent between 2020 and 2021.
The SLFRF dollars and upturn in federal housing and community development allocations
represent a “once-in-a-generation opportunity” for local governments to assess their local
housing needs, establish clear priorities, and appropriate resources to meet them, though
as policy analysts at the Brookings Institution’s Center for Metropolitan Studies recently
pointed out, “even with ARP’s unprecedented scale, local governments will not have enough
money to pay for every item on their wish list. Policymakers must be intentional about
choosing investments, basing decisions on data whenever possible.”

xviii
5. Local (and state) action, particularly efforts that foster collaborative, cross-
sector, community-based partnerships will be essential for meaningful
progress in addressing the affordable housing challenge.
There is no magic solution to the affordable housing challenge. While it is unlikely that the
federal government will completely retreat from the affordable housing policy domain, it is
clear that state and local governments will need to play a stronger role in mobilizing
resources and coordinating action. This will require the creation of new institutions capable
of designing, executing, and evaluating collective impact initiatives that bring together a
broad group of stakeholders, reach consensus on a collective agenda, define clear
benchmarks for measuring progress, align the activities of multiple agencies and
organizations in support of the collective effort, communicate clearly among all
stakeholders, and increase the capacity of the collaborative participants to work better
together.
The major challenge the county faces in moving its affordable housing efforts forward is
broadening, deepening, and connecting its efforts, particularly in ways that engage a
broader group of stakeholders in a comprehensive affordable housing strategy. Several
communities across the country—including many urban counties—have recently completed
affordable housing strategic plans or are in the process of doing so.

Recommendations

Get Organized:
DeKalb County Should Take a Leadership Role on Affordable Housing
1. Establish a county affordable housing officer.
2. Establish a cross-sector, collaborative advisory committee on affordable housing comprised of
a broad group of affordable housing stakeholders.
3. Establish a comprehensive data and information system to track housing conditions and
needs in DeKalb County, including preparation and dissemination of a regular report on
housing trends and conditions.
4. Connect with other efforts in the county’s municipalities and the greater Atlanta region to
promote and sustain affordable housing.

Develop Strategies:
Provide a Strategic Vision and Direction for Affordable Housing
1. Create a strategic plan for affordable housing that addresses needs, strategies and programs,
resources, sets priorities, and identifies key target groups and geographic areas.
2. Assess the availability of affordable housing and need for new investment regarding the
balance of housing for senior citizens, disabled, and special needs populations with affordable
housing for families.
3. Think comprehensively. Addressing the county’s affordable housing challenge will require
more than just expanding the supply of affordable housing units. The county should also be
thinking of an income strategy—how to boost the incomes of county residents to provide
greater choice in housing and neighborhoods.

xix
Take Action:
Mobilize Additional Resources for Affordable Housing in DeKalb County
1. Work with other local governments and affordable housing advocates to encourage the state
to replicate Florida’s State Housing Initiatives Partnership in Georgia.
2. Establish a county housing trust fund to support the county’s affordable housing activities.
3. Increase DeKalb County’s CDBG allocations for housing activities.
4. Complete a comprehensive assessment of the county’s zoning and land use requirements and
revise accordingly to reduce financial and regulatory barriers to the development of
affordable housing.
5. Determine the scope and purpose of the DeKalb County Regional Land Bank, and if a land
bank is determined to be needed, take the necessary steps to re-establish the land bank.
6. Follow through on the Comprehensive Plan’s call for inclusionary zoning to leverage
affordable housing through the private market (e.g., adoption of proposed workforce housing
ordinance).
7. Explore opportunities for using other public assets/public-private partnerships for the
creation of affordable housing—e.g., public land, other development opportunities, reuse of
under-utilized/vacant shopping malls and strip malls.
8. Encourage incorporation of affordable housing in transit-oriented development.
9. Preserve rental units at risk with expiring subsidies.
10. Preserve the county’s stock of naturally occurring affordable housing.
11. Develop a comprehensive strategy for working with landlords and property managers to
ensure the county’s affordable housing stock is preserved and well-maintained.

Conclusion
We encourage DeKalb County policymakers and key stakeholders interested in affordable
housing to consider the recommendations for action in this section not just ends that yield an
increased supply of affordable housing in the county, but also as means to more vibrant
neighborhoods and communities that provide wider pathways to economic prosperity. In considering
these recommendations we encourage county policymakers and practitioners to think about how
these recommendations can contribute to a place-based/place-focused approach for not just
improving the affordability of housing but also improving the conditions of the neighborhoods and
communities that influence the well-being and prospects for upward mobility of county residents.

xx
Introduction

This report was commissioned by the DeKalb County Department of Community Development to
assist county officials and other interested stakeholders in gaining a deeper understanding of the
affordable housing challenges in DeKalb County. The key objectives for the report were to: 1) assess
the contemporary housing context as it pertains to affordable housing, beginning with the nation,
moving to the Atlanta metro area, and then discussing DeKalb County in particular; 2) examine the
policy responses that have been taken in DeKalb County, with an emphasis on benchmarking the
county’s programs and strategies with those in comparable large urban counties in the Southeast; 3)
identify selective innovative practices other jurisdictions across the nation, particularly urban
counties, have taken to meet their affordable housing needs; and 4) offer a set of specific
recommendations for DeKalb County to consider in moving forward to address its affordable housing
needs and opportunities.
The county engaged Emory University’s Policy Analysis Laboratory, directed by Professor Michael J.
Rich, to prepare the report based on Emory’s experience in completing similar analyses for the
county over the past several years. These efforts have including assistance with the preparation of
the county’s five-year HUD Consolidated Plan, its application for Neighborhood Stabilization
Program funding, and the design and creation of the DeKalb Sustainable Neighborhoods Initiative,
among others. The PAL has also completed studies on public housing revitalization for Atlanta
Housing and the Housing Authority of Fulton County.
The research conducted for this report involved a review of several recently completed studies on
affordable and workforce housing in DeKalb County as well as documents and data made available
from several county departments and agencies. Many national studies and reports on affordable
housing were also examined and incorporated into the analysis. To provide a more granular view of
affordable housing needs and opportunities in DeKalb County, the study also compiled data from
several nationally available sources such as the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey
(ACS), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Comprehensive Housing
Affordability Strategy (special tabulations of the ACS data), other HUD data sets, and the National
Housing Preservation Database, among others. The study also utilizes current data on housing
markets derived from ApartmentData.com, a private research firm that tracks multifamily rental
markets in more than a dozen major metro areas including Atlanta, and the Georgia First Multiple
Listing Service (FMLS).

Affordable Housing as a “Wicked Problem”

Housing policy in the United States has evolved and expanded over the past 80 years since the
passage of the Housing Act of 1937, which created the public housing program. Today, housing in
America remains a predominantly private sector function, though it is affected by numerous federal,
state, and local government programs and agencies. The nonprofit sector, through an array of
community-based housing agencies as well as national and local foundations and philanthropic
organizations have also emerged as important players in the housing policy arena.
Beginning with the 1949 Housing Act, federal housing policy directed the nation’s attention to
housing quality as the act’s preamble called for “the realization as soon as feasible of the goal of a

1
decent home and suitable living environment for every American family.” 2 For the past three
decades, however, housing affordability has been a more pressing problem warranting federal

Figure 1. The Multiple Dimensions of Affordable Housing Policy

Owner
Renter
Vacant
Sector:
Public
Geography
Private
Nonprofit
Affordable
Housing

Target Intensity of
Population Treatment

Primary and
Secondary
Policy
Tools

attention as called for in the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act of 1990. Among
the purposes of the act were: (1) “to help families not owning a home to save for a downpayment for
the purchase of a home;” (2) “retain wherever feasible as housing affordable to low-income families
those dwelling units produced for such purpose with Federal assistance;” (3) to extend and
strengthen partnerships among all levels of government and the private sector, including for-profit
and non-profit organizations, in the production and operation of housing affordable to low-income
and moderate-income families;” (4) to expand and improve Federal rental assistance for very low-
income families;” and (5) “to increase the supply of supportive housing, which combines structural
features and services needed to enable persons with special needs to live with dignity and
independence.” 3
The pursuit of affordable housing, however, has proven to be a classic example of what many
observers call a “wicked problem,” one whose solution is not readily available by the actions of a
single department or agency. Neil Bradford characterizes wicked problems as follows:
Wicked problems highlight critical information gaps about what precisely is required
to help, and large coordination failures in terms of channeling the appropriate
resources to the right target. They cannot be solved through “off the shelf solutions.”
With their inherent complexity, these problems are resistant to traditional sectoral
interventions designed and delivered in a top-down fashion by individual government

2Quoted in John D. Landis and Kirk McClure, “Rethinking Federal Housing Policy,” Journal of the American
Planning Association, 76 (Summer 2010), p. 321.
3Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act of 1990, Public Law 101-625, Title I, Section 103,
November 28, 1990.

2
 departments. Required instead are place-sensitive modes of policy intervention—
strategies constructed with knowledge of their particular circumstances in
communities and delivered through collaborations crossing functional boundaries
and departmental silos. 4
Therefore, in thinking about affordable housing solutions in DeKalb County, one needs to be
attentive to the multiple dimensions of the affordable housing problem(s) and the complexity of the
policy environment in which solutions must be implemented (Figure 1). As should be clear from
Table 1, which provides additional detail illustrating these dimensions, there is no single solution or
magic pixie dust for solving the affordable housing problem. Indeed, based on the dimensions
identified in Table 1, there are more than 30,000 possible configurations of potential policy
interventions for addressing affordable housing. Among the choices local communities must navigate
include the following:
1. Housing tenure. Should the policy response focus on home ownership, rental housing,
vacant housing, or some combination of these?
2. Sectors. What sectors should be engaged in the design and implementation of the policy
response—public (federal, state, local), private, nonprofit, community?
3. Intensity of treatment—what intensity of treatment will be required?
Maintenance/preservation, rehabilitation, or redevelopment?
4. Policy Tools—what are the primary (financial, regulatory, planning, education and
outreach) and secondary policy areas (education, workforce development, economic
development, transportation and land use, etc.) that should be incorporated into the policy
response?
5. Target Population—what target population(s) should be served—extremely low income,
very low income, low income, workforce housing, elderly, family, special needs populations?
6. Geography—what geographic area(s) should be served—countywide, unincorporated areas,
low- and moderate-income census tracts, special target areas (e.g., enterprise zones, DeKalb
Sustainable Neighborhood Clusters, etc.), employment centers, activity centers, job clusters,
one or more neighborhoods, etc.?

Effective responses to DeKalb County’s housing affordability problems will likely require the County
and other key stakeholders to engage in a “collective impact” approach to the problem. As Kania and
Kramer note, collective impact requires “the commitment of a group of important actors from
different sectors to a common agenda for solving a specific social problem.” They add that
“collaboration is nothing new…But collective impact initiatives are distinctly different. Unlike most
collaborations, collective impact initiatives involve a centralized infrastructure, a dedicated staff,
and a structured process that leads to a common agenda, shared measurement, continuous
communication, and mutually reinforcing activities among all participants.” 5 We revisit these ideas
about the key conditions needed for effective collective impact initiatives and connect them to our
recommendations in Section 6 of this report.

4 Neil Bradford, Place-based Public Policy: Towards a New Urban and Community Agenda for Canada (Ottawa,

Ontario: Canadian Policy Research Networks, March 2005), p. 4.

5John Kania and Mark Kramer, “Collective Impact,” Stanford Social Innovation Review, Winter 2011, pp. 36-
38.

3
Table 1. The Multiple Dimensions of Affordable Housing Policy
Dimension Examples
1. Housing Tenure
2. Sector
3. Treatment Intensity
4. Primary Policy Tools Primary policy tools:
Secondary policy tools:
5. Target Population(s)
6. Geography
• Owner-occupied housing
• Renter-occupied housing
• Vacant housing
• Public—Federal, state, local governments
• Private—Developers, builders, lenders, investors, insurers, businesses,
business associations, real estate brokers and sales agents, property
appraisers, property managers, landlords, media
• Nonprofit—community development corporations, community-based
housing developers, housing counseling agencies, foundations,
charitable organizations
• Residents—long-term, short-term, home owners, renters, resident
associations
• Preservation
• Rehabilitation
• Redevelopment
• Financial—housing loan and grant programs
• Regulatory—building and zoning codes, inclusionary housing policies
• Planning—HUD consolidated plan, comprehensive plan, Affirmatively
Furthering Fair Housing plan, strategic plan
• Education, information, outreach—marketing housing programs and
incentives, home buyer education
• Workforce development
• Economic development
• K-12 Education
• Public safety
• Transportation
• Environment and Sustainability
• Extremely low income (≤ 30% AMI)
• Very low income (30 – 50% AMI)
• Low income (50 – 80% AMI)
• Workforce housing (60-120% AMI)
• Elderly
• Families
• Special needs populations (homeless, veterans, persons with disabilities,
formerly incarcerated persons, persons with HIV/AIDS, etc.)
• Countywide
• Low- and Moderate-income census tracts
• Special target areas (e.g., enterprise zones, DeKalb Sustainable
Neighborhood Initiative clusters, etc.)
• Employment centers, activity centers, job clusters
• School enrollment areas
4
 Organization of the Report
The report is organized into six sections. The first section provides a brief overview of the national
and metropolitan context, drawing on findings from several recent national studies and reports.
Section 2 summarizes recent trends in the greater Atlanta metropolitan area and provides a
comparative look at trends in DeKalb County as compared to those in the other core counties in
metro Atlanta (Clayton, Cobb, Fulton, Gwinnett) on selected indicators. Section 3 provides a more
detailed look at housing needs and challenges in DeKalb County and for several indicators compares
the situation in DeKalb County to that in the other four core counties in metro Atlanta and to six
comparable large urban counties in the South. Section 4 examines the recent experience in DeKalb
County and the other 10 counties included in the analysis regarding the utilization of federally-
funded assisted housing programs. These include public housing, project-based rental assistance
(e.g., Section 8 new construction and substantial rehabilitation), Housing Choice Vouchers, Low
Income Housing Tax Credits, CDBG, HOME, and the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. Section 5
surveys recent experience in DeKalb and the 10 comparison counties regarding the adoption of
various affordable housing strategies, which are grouped into three broad categories—housing
production, housing preservation, and asset building. In the last section we offer recommendations
for DeKalb County to consider in crafting a comprehensive strategy for addressing its affordable
housing needs and opportunities.

5
This page is intentionally blank

6
Section 1
The National and Metropolitan Context
Overview
Home Prices. Real home prices steadily increased over the past decade, rising by more than
nine percent during 2021. Nationally, home prices at the end of 2021 were two percent above
their peak in the mid-2000s and 60 percent above their base level in 2000.
Housing Construction. Housing construction in 2020 picked up strongly in the second half
of the year, ending with 1.38 million housing starts, the highest level since 2006. Despite the
increasing rates of housing production, the new supply still falls about 3.8 million units below
the level needed to meet long-term demand.
Homeownership Rates. After more than a decade of steady declines, homeownership rates
began to tick upward in 2016. Despite the gains in overall homeownership over the past few
years, the racial disparities in home ownership have widened, due in part to the pandemic
which has left many homeowners, particularly people of color and/or those with low incomes,
at risk. Homeownership rates in metropolitan Atlanta increased 4.7 percentage points over
the last five years, rising from 61.7 percent in 2015 to 66.4 percent in 2020, slightly above the
national rate for metropolitan areas
New Rental Housing Favors High End of the Market. The accelerated pace of
multifamily construction is being driven by strong demand for rental housing from higher-
income households. In metropolitan Atlanta, more than 80,000 units of multifamily housing
renting at or below $800 per month was lost between 2009 and 2019; the share of such units
declined from 36 percent in 2009 to 16 percent in 2019. More than half of DeKalb County’s
low-rental housing stock was lost between 2009 and 2019.
Rental Markets. The pandemic disrupted rental markets during 2020, but most markets
rebounded strongly in 2021 as evidenced by near record low vacancy rates and sharp rises in
rents. Asking rents in professionally managed apartments increased sharply in 2021, with
year-over-year annual rent growth rising from 1.7 percent in the first quarter of 2021 to 10.9
percent in the third quarter. Atlanta ranked ninth among the top 30 metro areas in year-over-
year rent growth for all asset classes in 2021.
Cost-Burdened Households. Even after ten years of economic expansion and the lowest
unemployment rate in decades, the share of renter households with cost burdens in 2019 was
down just four percentage points from the 2011 high. Since 2010 two important trends have
emerged: First, the number of cost-burdened renter households now exceeds the number of
cost-burdened owner households; Second, the affordability challenge is creeping up the income
ladder with more moderate-income renter households becoming cost-burdened.
Quality of the Housing Stock. Renter households (7.4%) were more than twice as likely to
live in inadequate housing as were homeowners (3.3%). While the prevalence of housing with
physical problems is generally low, lower-income renter households are more likely to
experience housing problems
The Affordable Housing Stock. Only about one in four households eligible for housing
assistance receive it. Nationwide in 2019, there were only 37 affordable and available rental
homes for every 100 extremely low-income households (30% AMI), 60 units for every 100 very
low-income households (50% AMI), and 94 units for every 100 low-income households (at 80%
AMI).

7
 Housing Market Trends

Home Prices
According to the most recent State of the Nation’s Housing (SONH) report by Harvard University’s
Joint Center on Housing Studies (JCHS), real home prices have steadily increased over the past
decade, rising by more than nine percent during 2021 based on the S&P Core Logic Case-Shiller
home price index. 6 Nationally, home prices at the end of 2021 were two percent above their peak in
the mid-2000s and 60 percent above the index’s base level in 2000.
The SONH report also cited data from the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s Purchase-Only House
Price Index, which showed that home prices increased by 10 percent or more in 85 of the 100 metro
areas tracked by the index and that the rate of increase was rapidly accelerating, rising by 20
percent or more in many markets. At the neighborhood level, the report referenced Zillow data that
documented home value increases in more than 90 percent of the nearly 30,000 zip codes it tracks.
The Zillow data also indicated that home values rose faster between 2019 and 2020 in communities
of color as opposed to majority-white neighborhoods, a trend that held in 47 of the 50 largest
markets. In metro Atlanta, for example, home prices increased 10.6 percent in communities of color
between 2019 and 2020, which exceeded the metro-wide average by 1.4 percentage point. 7

Housing construction
The 2021 SONH report noted that housing construction in 2020 picked up strongly in the second half
of the year, ending with 1.38 million housing starts, the highest level since 2006 when annual new
residential construction reached 1.80 million units. Single-family construction was the primary
driver of the surge in new housing construction, with a 12 percent increase, the largest percentage
gain since 2013. Multi-family housing, on the other hand, declined three percent during 2020, though
overall production remained comparable to levels attained since 2014. Multi-family production
increased sharply in the first quarter of 2021, averaging close to 450,000 units on a seasonally
adjusted annual rate. Nonetheless, the report concludes that despite the increasing rates of housing
production, the new supply still falls below projected demand, citing an estimate from Freddie Mac
that puts the housing supply at the end of 2020 about 3.8 million units below the level needed to
meet long-term demand. 8

Homeownership Rates
After more than a decade of steady declines, homeownership rates began to tick upward in 2016 and
according to the Housing Vacancy Survey, the national rate reached 65.6 percent in the first quarter
of 2021, a slight increase (0.3 percentage point) from a year earlier. The largest rate of increase in
homeownership was recorded by households under age 35 (0.8 percentage point gain).
Large gaps continue to hold in homeownership rates across race and ethnicity, with non-Hispanic
White households having higher rates of homeownership than people of color. The largest gap in
homeownership rates has historically been between White and Black households. According to the
Census Bureau, that gap was 30.3 percentage points at the end of 2021, more than three percentage
points higher than the homeownership gap record in 1960. By comparison, the gap between non-

6Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, The State of the Nation’s Housing: 2021, Cambridge:
Harvard University, 2021, p. 12.
7 Ibid, p. 13.
8 Ibid, p. 10.

8
Hispanic White households and Hispanic households was 26 percentage points and 13 percentage
points for all other races including Asian, Native, Hawaiian and Pacific Islander households. 9
Homeownership rates in metropolitan Atlanta increased 4.7 percentage points over the last five
years, rising from 61.7 percent in 2015 to 66.4 percent in 2020, slightly above the national rate for
metropolitan areas, according to the U.S. Bureau of the Census’ March 2021 Current Population
Survey/Housing Vacancy Survey (Table 2). Overall, metro Atlanta’s homeownership rate in 2020
ranked 40th among the nation’s 75 largest metro areas.
Despite the gains in overall homeownership over the past few years, the racial disparities in home
ownership have widened, due in part to the pandemic which has left many homeowners, particularly
people of color and/or those with low incomes, at risk. According to the Census Bureau’s Household
Pulse Surveys conducted during the first quarter of 2021, nearly 40 percent of homeowner
households reported they had lost income due to the pandemic and almost 10 percent were behind in
their mortgage payments. Homeowners of color were more likely to report having lost income and
were more than twice as likely to report being behind on their mortgage than were White
homeowners. Nearly one out of four low-income households (those with household incomes less than
$25,000) reported they were behind in their mortgage. 10

Shifts in the Supply of Rental Housing

According to the Joint Center for Housing Studies, the seasonally adjusted annual rate of
multifamily construction reached a three-decade high of 466,000 units through November 2021,
more than 100,000 units higher the average annual rate between 2014 and 2020. The report also
notes that more than 375,000 rental units were constructed in 2020, the highest number of newly
completed units since the 1980s. 11 The accelerated pace of multifamily construction is being driven
by strong demand for rental housing from higher-income households and is increasingly
concentrated in larger apartment complexes: about half of the new rental units added in 2020 were
in buildings with at least 50 apartments.
This is in sharp contrast to growth in the supply of rental housing during the period 2005-2015,
which largely came from the conversion of single-family homes to rental housing: nearly 4 million
units of rental housing were added to the national rental supply during this period increasing the
single-family share of rental housing from 36 percent to 39 percent. Among the nation’s 50 largest
metro areas, all but New Orleans recorded an increase in the share of single-family rentals during
this period with the largest increases taking place in metro areas with high foreclosure rates and
relatively little new rental housing construction (e.g., Cleveland, Memphis, Phoenix, Riverside). 12
In metropolitan Atlanta, more than 80,000 units of multifamily housing renting at or below $800 per
month was lost between 2009 and 2019; the share of such units declined from 36 percent in 2009 to
16 percent in 2019 (Table 3). In DeKalb County, nearly 21,000 low-rent units were lost during this

9See U.S. Bureau of the Census, “Quarterly Residential Vacancies and Homeownership, Fourth Quarter 2021,”
Release Number CB22-10, February 2, 2022; The Urban Institute, Housing Finance Policy Center, Reducing the
Racial Homeownership Gap; and Rashawn Ray, Andre M. Perry, David Harshbarger, Samantha Elizondo, and
Alexandria Gibbons, “Homeownership, Racial Segregation, and Policy Solutions to Racial Wealth Equity,” The
Brookings Institution, September 1, 2021.
10 Ibid., p. 21.
11 Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, America’s Rental Housing 2022, p. 5.
12 Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, The State of the Nation’s Housing: 2017, p. 26

9
Table 2. Homeownership Rates in Selected Southern Metropolitan Areas, 2015-2020
Ranked by 2020 Homeownership rate

Change
2015-
Metropolitan Area 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2020
Birmingham-Hoover, AL 71.3 68.7 70.6 65.9 66.7 76.0 4.7
North Port-Bradenton-Sarasota, FL. 71.3 73.4 65.0 62.7 73.9 75.8 4.5
Charleston-North Charleston-Summerville, SC 65.8 62.1 67.7 68.8 70.7 75.5 9.7
Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia, NC-SC 62.3 66.2 64.6 67.9 72.3 73.3 11.0
Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL 64.9 62.9 60.4 64.9 68.0 72.2 7.3
Baton Rouge, LA 64.2 64.8 66.9 66.6 66.2 72.1 7.9
Nashville-Davidson-Murfreesboro-Franklin, TN 67.4 65.0 69.4 68.3 69.8 69.8 2.4
Columbia, SC 66.1 63.9 70.7 69.3 65.9 69.7 3.6
Louisville/Jefferson County, KY-IN 67.7 67.6 71.7 67.9 64.9 69.3 1.6
Knoxville, TN 70.5 68.4 65.8 68.5 68.7 68.4 -2.1
Oklahoma City, OK 61.4 63.1 64.7 64.6 64.3 68.3 6.9
Raleigh, NC 67.4 65.9 68.2 64.9 63.0 68.2 0.8
Richmond, VA 67.4 61.7 63.1 62.9 66.4 66.5 -0.9
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA 61.7 61.5 62.4 64.0 64.2 66.4 4.7
New Orleans-Metairie, LA 62.8 59.3 61.7 62.6 61.1 66.3 3.5
Greensboro-High Point, NC 65.4 62.9 61.9 63.2 61.7 65.8 0.4
Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC 59.4 59.6 65.3 62.8 63.0 65.8 6.4
Austin-Round Rock, TX 57.5 56.5 55.6 56.1 59.0 65.4 7.9
Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX 60.3 59.0 58.9 60.1 61.3 65.3 5.0
US Metropolitan Areas 62.2 61.9 62.3 62.9 63.1 65.2 3.0
Jacksonville, FL 62.5 61.8 65.2 61.4 63.1 64.8 2.3
Dallas-Ft. Worth-Arlington, TX 57.8 59.7 61.8 62.0 60.6 64.7 6.9
Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL 58.4 58.5 59.5 58.5 56.1 64.2 5.8
San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX 66.0 61.6 62.5 64.4 62.6 64.2 -1.8
Memphis, TN-AR-MS 59.6 61.8 62.4 63.5 63.7 62.5 2.9
Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, FL 58.6 58.4 57.9 59.9 60.4 60.6 2.0
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Survey/Housing Vacancy Survey, March 9, 2021.

period and the share of low-rent units available in DeKalb County dropped from 35 to 13 percent.
Overall, more than half (56%) of DeKalb’s low-rental housing stock was lost between 2009 and 2019.
At the other end of the market, the number of rental units at $1,000 per month more than doubled in
metro Atlanta (149%) and DeKalb County (123%) during this period. The share of high-rent units in
DeKalb County increased from 36 to 68 percent and in metro Atlanta from 36 to 66 percent. Metro
Atlanta added nearly 300,000 high-rent units and DeKalb County added almost 50,000 units (Table
3).

10
Table 3. Metro Atlanta and DeKalb County Rental Units by Gross Rent, 2009-2019
2009 2019 Change, 2009-2019
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Metro Atlanta
Total rental units with cash rent 558,406 100.0 749,426 100.0 191,020 34.2
Less than $300 19,066 3.4 17,066 2.3 -2,000 -10.5
$300 to $599 51,234 9.2 33,999 4.5 -17,235 -33.6
$600 to $799 128,723 23.1 66,888 8.9 -61,835 -48.0
$800 to $999 160,170 28.7 134,635 18.0 -25,535 -15.9
$1,000 to $1,249 112,064 20.1 196,115 26.2 84,051 75.0
$1,250 to $1,499 48,276 8.7 141,305 18.9 93,029 192.7
$1,500 to $1,999 30,930 5.5 120,850 16.1 89,920 290.7
$2,000 or More 7,943 1.4 38,568 5.2 30,625 385.6

DeKalb County
Total rental units with cash rent 106,451 100.0 125,680 100.0 19,229 18.1
Less than $300 2,918 2.7 2,688 2.1 -230 -7.9
$300 to $599 7,960 7.5 3,761 3.0 -4,199 -52.8
$600 to $799 26,238 24.7 9,821 7.8 -16,417 -62.6
$800 to $999 30,696 28.8 23,353 18.6 -7,343 -23.9
$1,000 to $1,249 22,090 20.8 34,328 27.3 12,238 55.4
$1,250 to $1,499 9,250 8.7 25,060 19.9 15,810 170.9
$1,500 to $1,999 6,398 6.0 21,083 16.8 14,685 229.5
$2,000 or More 901 0.9 5,586 4.4 4,685 520.0

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2005-2009 and
2015-2019.

Rental Markets
Nationally, rental markets remained relatively tight prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic
due primarily to low vacancy rates. According to the Joint Center for Housing Studies, real rent
growth increased to more than 2.6 percent in the third quarter of 2019, which marked 29 consecutive
quarters of real rent growth, one quarter short of the longest consecutive streak in records that date
back to World War II. 13

The pandemic disrupted rental markets during 2020, but most markets rebounded strongly in 2021
as evidenced by near record low vacancy rates and sharp rises in rents. Since hitting a decade-low
annual rate of 1.8 percent in the Spring of 2021, the Consumer Price Index for rent, which includes
both new and continuing leases, nearly doubled to 3.0 percent in November 2021. Asking rents in
professionally managed apartments, however, increased sharply in 2021, with year-over-year annual
rent growth rising from 1.7 percent in the first quarter of 2021 to 10.9 percent in the third quarter. 14
Rents for higher-quality apartments rose the fastest during this period (13.8%) as compared to
lower-quality (4.3%) and moderate-quality units (11%). The sharp increase in rents during 2021
occurred in all but two of the 150 metro markets tracked by RealPage with more than half of the

13 Joint Center for Housing Studies, America’s Rental Housing: 2020, p. 20.
14 America’s Rental Housing: 2022, p. 24.

11
metros reporting double-digit increases
and eight markets posting increases of 20
percent or more. 15 Overall, the State of In metropolitan Atlanta, nearly
the Nation’s Housing 2021 report notes 130,000 units of multifamily
rents rose at an annual rate of 11 percent
as compared to 1.2 percent a year earlier, housing renting at or below $800
based on Zillow data. Despite these sharp
increases in rents, the report points out
per month was lost between 2006
that rent increases lagged home price and 2019; the share of such units
increases in 99 of the large markets
tracked by Zillow. 16 declined from 42 percent in 2006
Yardi Matrix’ National Multifamily to 13 percent in 2019. Almost
Report, which tracks rents in commercial three-fourths of DeKalb’s low-
apartment properties of 50 units and
larger in 162 markets, reported national rent housing stock was lost and
average asking rents rose by 13.5 percent
year-over-year in 2021, which was more
the share of low-rent units
than double any previous year recorded available in DeKalb County
by Matrix. Among the top 30 metros,
Atlanta ranked ninth in year-over-year dropped from 40 to 9 percent. At
rent growth for all asset classes. Phoenix the other end of the market, the
led all metros (25.3%), followed by five
other metros that each had rent growth number of rental units at $1,000
gains of 20 percent or more—Tampa
(24.6%), Miami (23.5%), Orlando (22.7%),
per month or more increased
Las Vegas (22.2%), and Austin (20.9%). 17 nearly three-fold in metro
According to Yardi Matrix’ Multifamily Atlanta (250%) and DeKalb
Report for Atlanta, year-over-year rent
growth in Atlanta as of November 2021 County (239%) during this
was 18.9 percent, despite the region
having one of the country’s most robust
period.
multifamily inventory expansions. More
than 90 percent of the 64 submarkets
tracked in the Atlanta metro area had double-digit rent increases in 2021; only one submarket had
an average rent below $1,000. 18 Atlanta ranked fifth among the top 30 metros in terms of single-
family asking rent growth in 2021. Between March 2020 and December 2021, asking rents for
single-family rentals rose by 22.9 percent in metro Atlanta as compared to 13.5 percent for the
nation’s top 30 metros. 19

15 Ibid, pp. 24-25.

16 Ibid, p. 25
17 Yardi Matrix, National Multifamily Report, December 2021, p. 3.
18 Yardi Matrix, Multifamily Report: Atlanta’s Comeback, January 2022, p. 3.
19 Ibid., p. 5.

12
 Housing Challenges
The primary housing challenge remains one of affordability. While the condition of the housing stock
in some communities presents challenges, physical problems are far less prevalent than those
related to affordability.

Cost-Burdened Households
The most widely accepted definition of affordability considers housing to be affordable if a household
spends no more than 30 percent of its income toward housing costs (rent/mortgage plus utilities). 20
To assist local jurisdictions in planning their housing affordability strategies, HUD and the U.S.
Census Bureau provide custom tabulations of census and American Community Survey data on the
housing needs of low- and moderate-income households. The tabulations estimate, by income group,
the number of households that are cost burdened (pay more than 30 percent of their income for
housing) and severely cost burdened (pay more than 50 percent of their income for housing). Both are
widely used measures of housing affordability. The special tabulations also estimate the number of
housing units that would be affordable to households with particular incomes; thresholds typically
used for these analyses are extremely low income (less than 30 percent of AMI), very low income (30-
50 percent of AMI), and low income (50-80 percent of AMI), which HUD uses for determining
eligibility for various assisted housing programs.

While the pandemic has thrust millions of

The primary housing households into deeper financial stress, the
impact has been greatest among lower-income
challenge remains one of households (those earning less than $25,000 in
affordability. While the 2019) as a quarter of both low-income renters
and homeowners had fallen behind in their
condition of the housing stock housing payments at the beginning of 2021.
in some communities presents Low-income households of color were more
likely to be behind in their housing payments
challenges, physical problems as Black renter households (35%) were twice as
likely as White renter households (17%) to be
are far less prevalent than behind; similar trends held for homeowners. 21
those related to affordability. Citing data from the Census Bureau’s
Household Pulse Surveys, the State of the
Nation’s Housing 2021 report notes that many
moderate income households also had fallen behind in their housing payments, though the share of
households behind in housing payments for those earning at least $75,000 (6%) was four times lower
than the lowest income households. 22 Of particular concern is that between 25 and 40 percent of
renter households drew from their savings to meet their housing payments during the pandemic;

20Paul Joice, “Measuring Housing Affordability,” Cityscape, 16, 1 (2014), p. 301. Note that while the 30 percent
threshold has become the standard for assessing housing affordability it does not equate with the concept of
shelter poverty, which is based on the notion that the 30 percent standard does not account for what a
household can afford to pay for housing while meeting other essential needs such as food, healthcare, childcare,
and transportation. See Whitney Airgood-Obrycki, Alexander Hermann, and Sophia Wedeen, “The Rent Eats
First: Rental Housing Unaffordability in the US,” Harvard University, Joint Center for Housing Studies,
January 2021.
21 State of the Nation’s Housing: 2021, p. 30.
22 Ibid.

13
about a quarter of these households had depleted their savings and another quarter had resorted to
borrowing money from family or friends to pay for housing. 23
While the pandemic certainly increased attention on the plight of households facing challenges in
meeting their housing obligations, the nation has been in the midst of a housing affordability
challenge for much of the past two decades as housing costs outpaced the growth in income and
inflation for many households, particularly low- and moderate-income households. The number of
cost-burdened households—both renters and owners—steadily increased between 2001 and 2009 at
which point the number of cost-burdened homeowners began to decline while cost-burdened renters
continued to increase and has hovered around 20 million households since 2011 (Figure 2).

Figure 2. U.S. Cost-Burdened Households by Housing Tenure, 2001-2019

Millions of cost-burdened households

25

20

15

10

0
2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019

Renters Owners

Source: Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, State of the Nation’s Housing: 2020, p. 34.

The State of the Nation’s Housing 2021 report notes that “even after ten years of economic expansion
and the lowest unemployment rate in decades, the share of renter households with cost burdens in
2019 was down just four percentage points from the 2011 high.” 24 Since 2010 two important trends
have emerged regarding the affordability crisis. First, the number of cost-burdened renter
households now exceeds the number of cost-burdened owner households; in 2019 there were about
four million more cost-burdened renters than homeowners (Figure 2) and the share of cost-burdened
renter households (48.3%) was more than twice the rate for homeowners (21.3%). Second, the
affordability challenge is creeping up the income ladder with more moderate-income renter
households becoming housing cost-burdened (Table 4). While nearly nine out of ten of the lowest
income households remained housing cost-burdened during this period, renter households earning

23 Ibid, p. 31.
24 State of the Nation’s Housing: 2021, p. 4.

14
between $20,000 and $75,000 all experienced double-digit gains in the percentage of cost-burdened
households. In 2019, eight out of ten renter households earning between $20,000 and $34,999 were
cost-burdened as were more than half of renter households earning between $35,000 and $49,999
and more than one out of four households earning between $50,000 and $74,999.

Table 4. U.S. Cost Burdened Households by Tenure and Household Income, 2010-2019

Change 2010-2019
Percentage Percentage
2010 2019 point change change in number
(Percent) (Percent) in share of households

Owner-Occupied
Less than $20,000 72.3 74.7 2.4 -23.8
$20,000 to $34,999 49.5 46.8 -2.7 -28.8
$35,000 to $49,999 39.3 33.3 -6.0 -32.4
$50,000 to $74,999 27.8 21.8 -6.0 -29.4
$75,000 or more 12.2 6.8 -5.4 -22.1
Total 30.7 21.3 -9.4 -27.2
Renter-Occupied
Less than $20,000 88.6 88.1 -0.5 -24.2
$20,000 to $34,999 69.4 79.1 9.7 2.9
$35,000 to $49,999 37.2 52.4 15.2 50.9
$50,000 to $74,999 17.8 28.0 10.3 109.0
$75,000 or more 4.9 7.5 2.5 214.2
Total 53.0 48.4 -4.5 2.4

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey, 1-Year estimates, 2010 and 2019.

Federal Policy Responses. Several federal policy responses provided financial assistance to
households through direct stimulus payments, extended and enhanced unemployment benefits, and
emergency rental assistance to help households meet their housing expenses and provide for other
basic needs. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021, signed into law on December 27, 2020,
appropriated $25 billion for emergency rental assistance (ERA 1) and the American Rescue Plan,
signed into law on March 11, 2021, appropriated an additional $21.5 billion for emergency rental
assistance (ERA 2). Many state and local governments, however, have struggled in distributing their
emergency rental assistance funds. In early January 2022, the Treasury Department began
reallocating unobligated funds awarded to low-performing grantees (state and local governments
that had not committed at least 65 percent of their first round ERA award) to higher performing
grantees. Of the $240 million reallocation, the city of Atlanta received $1.5 million and Gwinnett
County $700,000. A second round of reallocations is expected in early 2022. 25
According to the Treasury Department’s ERA monthly compliance expenditure report for November
2021, the most recent data available, 62 percent of the $25 billion ERA 1 appropriation had been

25 U.S. Department of Treasury, Emergency Rental Assistance Program, ERA Round 1 Reallocation, January 7,

2022.

15
spent. 26 Overall, 29 percent of the funds allocated to Georgia had been spent as of November 2021
though expenditure rates varied widely by jurisdiction. Whereas the city of Atlanta and four of the
five core counties in metro Atlanta had spent all their funds (all but Clayton County, which reported
an expenditure rate of 26%), the state of Georgia had only spent 10 percent of its ERA 1 allocation. 27

Quality of the Housing Stock

According to HUD’s American Housing Survey about five percent of the nation’s occupied housing
stock was considered inadequate in 2019; renter households (7.4%) were more than twice as likely to
live in inadequate housing as were homeowners (3.3%). HUD classifies units as inadequate based on
the number and type of structural problems such as building conditions (e.g., sagging roofs, broken
windows, crumbling foundations, holes in the walls or floors, mold, pest infestation) and/or the lack
of or problems with basic systems (e.g., plumbing, electricity, water, or heat). Less than two percent
of renter-occupied housing units were classified as having severely inadequate housing quality.
Older units (those built before 1940) accounted for about one out of four (23.8%) rental units with a
physical housing problem. 28
While the prevalence of housing with physical problems is generally low, lower-income renter
households are more likely to experience housing problems. About one out of ten renter households
with incomes less than $30,000 reported housing problems in 2019 (9.9%) as compared to 7.6 percent
of renter households with incomes between $30,000 and $49,999 and 5.6 percent of households with
incomes between $50,000 and $79,999. 29

The Affordable Housing Stock

The State of the Nation’s Housing 2017 report concludes that “access to affordable, accessible, and
safe housing is critical to the health and well-being of all households, and particularly the most
vulnerable—the very young and very old, those with disabilities, and those living in poverty.” 30 Only
about one in four households eligible for housing assistance receive it. For those cost burdened
households without assistance, however, contemporary market trends and uncertainties surrounding
publicly-funded affordable housing present significant challenges for closing the affordability gap.
The National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC) estimates that nationwide in 2019, there were
only 37 affordable and available rental homes for every 100 extremely low-income households (at
30% AMI), 60 units for every 100 very low-income households (at 50% AMI), and 94 units for every
100 low-income households (at 80% AMI).

26 The Treasury Department calculated expenditure rates by summing the total amount of assistance to

households for rent, rental arrears, utility/home energy costs and arrears, and other housing services and
eligible expenses excluding funds paid for housing stability services (eviction prevention and diversion) divided
by 90 percent of the ERA 1 allocation. See U.S. Department of Treasury, Emergency Rental Assistance
Program, Emergency Rental Assistance Monthly Compliance Report: November 1-30, 2021.
27 Ibid. See also Sean Keenan, “Treasury Soon to Reallocate Emergency Rental Assistance from Slow-Spending

States. Will Georgia Have to Forfeit Funds? Atlanta Civic Circle, October 16, 2021.
28 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Housing Survey: 2019.
29 American Housing Survey: 2019.
30 State of the Nation’s Housing: 2017, p. 37.

16
According to the NLIHC’s analysis, “no state has an adequate supply of affordable and available
homes for extremely low-income renters.” 31 In Georgia, there are 41 rental homes available and
affordable for every 100 extremely low-income households. Metro Atlanta has only 29 affordable and
available rental homes per 100 extremely low-income households, which is well below the national
threshold and ranks 17th lowest among the nation’s 50 largest metropolitan areas. 32
Regarding the concept of available, the NLIHC notes that “extremely low-income renters must
compete with all higher-income households for the limited number of rental homes affordable to
them in the private market.” Their analysis notes that only about four out of seven of the 7.4 million
homes affordable to extremely low-income households are occupied by them; about two million of
these units are occupied by higher-income low-income households and 1.3 million by households with
moderate or above-median incomes (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Renter Households and Affordable and Available Rental Homes, 2019.
Millions of households and rental homes

Source: National Low Income Housing Coalition, The Gap, p. 6. NLIHC tabulations of 2019 ACS PUMS data.

The NLIHC analysis notes that “a significant factor in explaining these severe housing cost burdens
is the lack of subsidized affordable homes for extremely low-income households” and points out that
“metropolitan areas with less HUD-assisted housing as a share of the total rental stock have a

31 Andrew Aurand, Dan Emmanuel, Daniel Threet, Ikra Rafi, and Diane Yentel, The Gap: A Shortage of

Affordable Homes, Washington, DC: National Low Income Housing Coalition, March 2021, p. 5. The report
notes these estimates are conservative as the shortage does not account for the homeless or for households that
are “doubling up”.
32 Ibid., Appendix A and B.

17
greater share of extremely low-income renters who are severely cost-burdened.” 33 The report also
notes that long-term trends in the loss of low-cost rental units has also contributed to the
housing cost burdens of extremely low-income renters as has the fact that lower-cost rental homes
“persistently saw higher rates of rent inflation than the highest-cost homes” during both periods of
economic booms and busts between 1991 and 2013.

Worst Case Housing Needs

HUD is required to report biennially to Congress on the nation’s worst case housing needs that
focuses on the housing needs and problems faced by low-income renter households and families.
HUD defines worst case housing needs as very low-income renters (incomes at or below 50 percent of
area median income) who “do not receive government housing assistance and who pay more than
one-half of their income toward rent, live in severely inadequate conditions, or both.” 34 The report
estimates there were 7.8 million renter households with worst case housing needs in 2019, about the
same as the 2017 estimate, though a decline from the 8.5 million reported in 2011 but substantially
higher than the five million households with worst case housing needs in 2001.
The report noted that the prevalence of worst case
housing needs varied among demographic groups.
The highest rates were recorded among American Among the nation’s 15
Indian or Alaskan Native households (55%)
followed by Asian households (53%), Hispanic largest metropolitan areas,
households (45%), non-Hispanic White households metro Atlanta had the fifth
(44%), and non-Hispanic Black (36%) households.
Regionally, worst case housing needs declined highest percentage of very
slightly between 2017 and 2019 in the Midwest,
Northeast, and South, but increased by almost
low income renters with
seven percent in the West. Worst case housing worst case housing needs in
needs slightly declined among all household types
except for elderly households which saw a slight 2019 (50.2%).
increase of one percentage point. In terms of
income, extremely low-income households (below
30% AMI) account for nearly three-fourths of worst case housing needs households, the highest share
since 2005. Nationally, 42.2 percent of very low income renter households had worst case housing
needs in 2019 as comparted to 42.7 percent in 2017. Among the nation’s 15 largest metropolitan
areas, metro Atlanta had the fifth highest percentage of very low income renters with worst case
housing needs in 2019 (50.2%); Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA had the highest rate (65.8%)
whereas Boston-Cambridge-Newton had the lowest (28.5%). As noted in other studies and reports,
for most households, worst case housing needs are a result of financial burden; less than three
percent of worst case needs were attributed to poor housing quality.
HUD’s report discussed the relationship between a variety of demographic factors and the housing
market’s response to changes in those factors as the key determinants affecting the number of very
low-income renter households with worst case housing needs (Figure 4). These include:

33 Ibid., p. 11.
34 Thyria Alvarez and Barry L. Steffen, Worst Case Housing Needs: 2021 Report to Congress, Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, July 2021, p.
vii.

18
 1. Household formation increased worst case needs in 2019 as there was a net increase in the number of
very low income households;
2. Tenure shift reduced worst case needs since the growth in homeowners outpace the growth in renters;
3. Changes in renter household income increased worst case needs due to a net increase in the number of
renter households with income below 50 percent of AMI; and
4. The housing assistance gap increased worst case needs as there was a net increase in very low income
households lacking rental assistance from federal, state, or local governments.

The analysis attributed most of the increase in worst case housing needs in 2019 (a net change of
50,000 households) to increases in household formation, particularly among very low-income
households, and to an increased gap in housing assistance between those who don’t receive
assistance and those that do. The report added that while the demographic factors taken together
could have substantially increased worst case housing needs, the net increase attributable to
demographic factors was reduced by 81 percent from modest gains in the rental supply and changes
in the availability of affordable units (fifth column in Figure 4).

Figure 4. Key Determinants of Worst Case Housing Needs

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research,
Worst Case Housing Needs: 2021 Report to Congress, Washington, D.C., September 2021, p. ix.

As noted earlier, HUD’s worst case housing needs report pointed out that the COVID-19 pandemic
and related economic downturn and resurgence have caused major disruptions for American families
and housing markets. How the demographic and economic factors interact to affect worst case
housing needs among very low income renters is unclear at this point. On the one hand, the

19
economic disruptions could dramatically increase the number of very low-income renter households
due to the loss of income during the pandemic. The dramatic increase in housing prices—both
purchase and rental—could decrease the number of renters who turn to homeownership and
decrease the number of affordable and available units for very low-income renters. On the other
hand, public policy responses including the federal stimulus payments and emergency rental
assistance in addition to efforts taken by some state and local governments and local philanthropy,
could offset some income losses and provide housing stability for some very low-income renter
households. Perhaps most important, it is unclear whether these policy responses will be picked up
by the data collection methods used by HUD and the Census Bureau through the biennial American
Housing Survey to measure worst case housing needs in 2021.

Summary
Current national trends suggest that the predominant housing problem remains one of housing
affordability, particularly regarding the number of low- and moderate-income households with
housing cost burdens and severe cost burdens. Federal funding for affordable housing programs has
not kept pace with demand over the past decade, placing larger burdens on state and local
governments to address the affordability problem. Many communities face increasing challenges in
retaining their “naturally occurring” affordable housing and adding to their supply of affordable
units. Added pressures on both homeowners and renters have emerged during the last year as rental
and homeowner housing markets have heated up with both experiencing double-digit increases in
housing prices in 2021. The COVID-19 public health crisis, the economic collapse of 2020, and the
uncertainty surrounding the sustainability of the 2021 recovery have all converged to broaden and
deepen the systemic housing affordability crisis facing the nation. Responding to this crisis will
require bold and imaginative responses from governments at all levels as well as collaboration with
the private, nonprofit, and philanthropic sectors.
The next sections of this report dive deeper into the affordable housing challenge in DeKalb County,
examining needs and trends, policy responses, and best and promising practices drawn from other
large urban jurisdictions.

20
Section 2
Recent Housing Trends in Metropolitan Atlanta

Overview
Historical Trends
Population. According to the 2020 decennial census, metro Atlanta currently includes 29
counties with a total population of 6.1 million. Though the population of both Fulton and DeKalb
counties increased in 2020, only about three out of every ten residents in metropolitan Atlanta
resided in those counties. DeKalb County’s share of the population in the five core metro counties
declined from 30 percent in 1970 to 20 percent in 2020, with the sharpest declines occurring
between 1970 and 1990.
Employment. A similar decentralization trend has occurred regarding employment. In 2019 ,
the share of jobs in Fulton and DeKalb counties had declined to less than half (46%) of all jobs in
the metro area and to about six out of ten jobs (59%) in the five core counties. DeKalb County’s
declining shares of metro Atlanta’s population and jobs are due not only to the higher growth rates
recorded by the region’s outlying counties, but also to DeKalb’s slower growth in population and
jobs compared to the region’s original five core counties
Race and Ethnicity. Metro Atlanta’s five core counties have become more diverse and the
geographic distribution of racial and ethnic group residences also decentralized. The 2020 census
shows that the number of majority Black census tracts continued to increase in the five-core
counties with the additions found in Clayton, Cobb, and Gwinnett counties whereas the number of
majority Black census tracts in DeKalb and Fulton counties declined by about four percent during
this same period.
Poverty. Nationally, poverty rates began to turn in 2014 and according to the Census Bureau’s
most recent annual report on income and poverty, declined to 10.5 percent in 2019, which was the
lowest poverty rate since estimates were published in 1959. For the five core counties in Metro
Atlanta the ACS five-year estimates show the number of high poverty census tracts declined from
93 in 2006-2010 to 69 in 2015-2019, a decline of 25.8 percent. In DeKalb County, the number of
high poverty tracts declined from 17 to 14 during that same time period.
Racial and Economic Segregation. Despite the dramatic demographic and economic
transformation of the Atlanta metropolitan area over the past 50 years, large racial and class
disparities remain and are deeply rooted in the geography of metro Atlanta. The level of
residential segregation in metro Atlanta remains high—particularly in the core counties of Fulton
and DeKalb—which in turn exerts strong influence on the types of neighborhoods people live in
and the access to opportunities—housing, education, jobs and services—those neighborhoods
provide.

Current Trends
Economic Growth. Metropolitan Atlanta’s recovery from the Great Recession, which officially
ended in 2010, has been strong, but trails many other metro aras in the South. Real growth in
gross domestic product increased 32.5 percent between 2010 and 2020 in metro Atlanta, which
was the sixth highest increase among the nation’s top 20 metro areas and 13th largest increase
among the top 50 metro areas. The region’s economic performance has recently begun to accelerate
as employment in the region in early 2022 approached pre-pandemic levels. While the region has
traditionally lagged other metros in earnings per job, the gap has narrowed.

21
 Home Prices. Housing in the metro Atlanta region is very affordable compared to other
metropolitan areas and the national average. According to a recent analysis by the Atlanta
Regional Commission, Atlanta ranks second in housing affordability compared to the region’s peer
metro areas. Over the past eight years home sales price in the five metro Atlanta core counties
have followed similar trajectories. Home prices in DeKalb County increased by 16.9 percent
during calendar year 2021 according to Georgia FMLS data and at the end of 2021 were 47
percent higher than prices in 2017 and three times as high as the median price of home sales in
April 2012, the trough of the Great Recession for most metro Atlanta counties.
Mortgage Delinquencies and Foreclosures. Atlanta was one of the metropolitan areas hit
hardest by the foreclosure crisis that began to attract national attention in the mid-2000s.
Beginning in 2010 delinquency and foreclosure rates began to fall and by 2015 had converged with
national rates. As a result of the federal moratorium issued during the pandemic, foreclosure
filings in the five core Atlanta metro counties continued to converge and approached zero by the
end of 2021.
Rent Trends. According to a recent report by the National Low Income Housing Coalition, the
fair market rent for a two-bedroom apartment in metro Atlanta was $1,185 in 2021, which would
require an hourly wage of $22.79 to be affordably housed, equivalent to three full-time jobs at
minimum wage. While rent increases averaged in the range of four to six percent annually
between 2015 and 2020, rents in metro Atlanta on average were 20 percent higher at the end of
2021 as compared to the end of 2020 according to an analysis of data provided by one company
tracking the Atlanta rental market.
Cost Burdened Households. Overall, about one out of three households in metro Atlanta paid
more than 30 percent of their household income for housing in 2019 according to the 2019 five-
year estimates from the American Community Survey. 35 About one out of five homeowners (21%)
and nearly half (49%) of renter households were cost burdened in 2019. The prevalence of housing
cost burdens was much greater for households with income less than $50,000 (about 83% of the
metro area median). Overall, seven out of ten low-income households were cost burdened in 2019;
half of low-income owner households and more than eight out of ten low-income renter households
were cost burdened in metro Atlanta in 2019.

35 Analysis of U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey, 2019 1-Year Estimates.

22
This section provides context for assessing the housing challenges in DeKalb County by reviewing
historical demographic and economic trends in metro Atlanta’s five core counties as well as recent
trends in economic growth, population and employment change, and housing in the Atlanta
metropolitan area. While the analysis shows that metropolitan Atlanta continues to perform strongly
compared to other metropolitan areas in the United States, its standing among major US metros has
declined on many economic, employment, and population growth indicators compared to its pre-
recession rankings. Recent data, however, suggests the greater Atlanta region is once again
emerging as one of the nation’s most vibrant metros.
Although the Atlanta metro area housing market recently surpassed its pre-recession peak and is
currently undergoing a housing market resurgence, particularly in the rental market, lower income
households have not fared as well. Despite the boom in rental housing over the past few years, metro
Atlanta ranked seventh among the nation’s 20 largest metropolitan areas for the percentage of
renter households with cost burdens and thirteenth for renter households with severe rent burdens.
Nearly two out of three renter households with incomes below $35,000 (63.3%) had severe rent
burdens, which placed Atlanta eleventh among the nation’s 20 largest metropolitan areas.

Historical Trends
Population. In 1970, the metropolitan Atlanta area comprised five counties—Fulton, DeKalb,
Clayton, Cobb, and Gwinnett—with a total population of 1.4 million. More than seven out of ten
Atlanta metro area residents resided in the two largest counties, Fulton (608,000) and DeKalb
(415,000). According to the 2020 decennial census, metro Atlanta currently includes 29 counties with
a total population of 6.1 million. Though the population of both Fulton and DeKalb counties has
increased, in 2020 only about three out of every ten residents in metropolitan Atlanta resided in
those counties; more than six out of every ten residents in metro Atlanta resided in the original five
metro counties. DeKalb County’s share of the population in the five core counties has declined from
30 percent in 1970 to 20 percent in 2020, with the sharpest declines in regional shares occurring
between 1970 and 1990.

Table 5. Total Population and Population Change by Decade and County, 1970-2020

Clayton Cobb DeKalb Fulton Gwinnett

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Year (000) Change (000) Change (000) Change (000) Change (000) Change

1970 98 -- 197 -- 415 -- 608 -- 72 --

1980 150 53.4 298 51.3 483 16.3 590 -2.9 167 130.7
1990 182 21.1 448 50.4 546 13.0 649 10.0 353 111.4
2000 237 29.9 608 35.7 666 22.0 816 25.7 588 66.7
2010 259 9.7 688 13.2 692 3.9 921 12.8 805 36.9
2020 298 14.7 766 11.3 764 10.5 1067 15.9 957 18.8

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Decennial Census of Population and Housing, various years.

23
Employment. A similar decentralization trend has occurred regarding employment. In 1970, Fulton
and DeKalb County accounted for nearly nine out of ten (86%) jobs in metropolitan Atlanta. In 2019 ,
the share of jobs in Fulton and DeKalb counties had declined to less than half (46%) of all jobs in the
29-county metro area and to about six out of ten jobs (59%) in the five core counties. Among the five
core counties, only Cobb, Fulton and Gwinnett counties have seen their 2019 employment totals
surpass those recorded in 2000, prior to the Great Recession (Table 6, Figure 5).

Table 6. Total Employment and Employment Change, Metro Atlanta Core Counties, 1970-2019

Clayton Cobb DeKalb Fulton Gwinnett

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Year (000) Change (000) Change (000) Change (000) Change (000) Change

1970 11,812 -- 53,503 81,183 372,692 8,279

1980 44,832 279.5 84,116 57.2 198,678 144.7 391,697 5.1 39,030 371.4
1990 53,662 19.7 184,519 119.4 296,267 49.1 535,485 36.7 144,430 270.0
2000 88,522 65.0 312,875 69.6 328,388 10.8 768,516 43.5 287,466 99.0
2010 70,758 -20.1 301,709 -3.6 252,597 -23.1 681,304 -11.3 281,534 -2.1
2015 70,709 -0.1 326,060 8.1 269,019 6.5 763,933 12.1 318,822 13.2
2019 71,159 0.6 360,023 10.4 289,015 7.4 840,711 10.0 337,848 6.0

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, County Business Patterns, various years.

Figure 5. Total Employment in Metro Atlanta Core Counties by County, 1970-2019

900,000

800,000

700,000

600,000

500,000

400,000 Fulton

300,000

200,000

DeKalb Cobb Gwinnett

100,000 Clayton

0
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2015 2019

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, County Business Patterns, various years.

24
DeKalb County’s declining shares of metro Atlanta’s population and jobs are due not only to the
higher growth rates recorded by the region’s outlying counties, but also to DeKalb’s slower growth in
population and jobs compared to the region’s original five core counties (Figure 6).

Figure 6. DeKalb County Share of Atlanta Metro Area Core County Population and Employment,
1970-2019

35.0

Population
30.0

25.0

20.0

Employment
15.0

10.0

5.0

0.0
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2019

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Decennial Census of Population and Housing, various years and County
Business Patterns, various years.

Race. In addition to the decentralization of population and jobs, metro Atlanta’s five core counties
have also become more diverse (Figure 7). In 1980, all the core counties except for Fulton were
predominantly White; more than nine out of ten residents in Clayton, Cobb, and Gwinnett counties
were non-Hispanic White as were more than seven out of ten residents in DeKalb County. The
nonwhite population in 1980 was largely concentrated in Fulton (51%) and DeKalb (27%) counties.
By 2020, all five core counties had majority nonwhite populations. Clayton (69%) and DeKalb
(50.3%) were majority-Black counties, though their trajectories were moving in different directions.
Clayton County saw its African American population increase from 65 percent to 69 percent over the
past decade while DeKalb County’s African American population declined from 53.6 to 50.3
percent. 36 African-Americans were a plurality in Fulton County (42%), Cobb County (26%), and
Gwinnett County (27%).

36The Census Bureau advises caution in interpreting comparisons between the 2020 and 2010 Census race data
as changes were made to the Hispanic origin and race questions and the ways responses to those questions were
used to classify the population. The Census Bureau now uses the concepts of race alone, race in combination,
and race alone or in combination to present tabulations of the racial and ethnic composition of the population.
As a result, the 2020 census tabulations show small declines for some race alone groups (e.g., White, Black) but
increases for the multi-racial population that increased from 2.9 percent of the total population in 2010 to 10.2
and Merarys Rios-Vargas, “2020 Census Illuminates Racial and Ethnic Composition of the Country,”
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Bureau of the Census, August 12, 2021.

25
Figure 7. Percent of Population by Race and Ethnicity, Metro Atlanta Core Counties, 1980-2020
Clayton Cobb DeKalb Fulton Gwinnett

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population,

various years.

26
Gwinnett represents the metro area’s most diverse county—33 percent White, 27 percent Black, 23
percent Latinx, and 13 percent Asian in 2020. While the African American population share has
remained relatively constant in Fulton and DeKalb counties since 2000, there have been large
increases in the other three counties (Gwinnett’s share doubled from 13 to 27 percent, Clayton’s
increased by 18 percentage points, and the share in Cobb County was up nearly eight percentage in
2020 compared to 2000). Similarly, these three counties also recorded larger increases in their share
of the Latinx population than did Fulton or DeKalb counties, with the Latinx share in Clayton and
Cobb counties nearly doubling and Gwinnett’s share doubling from 11 to 23 percent over the past
twenty years. Gwinnett is the only county among the five core counties with an Asian population
greater than 10 percent, hitting that mark in 2010.
As the region’s racial and ethnic composition changed, the geographic distribution of racial and
ethnic group residences also decentralized. Figure 8 shows the spatial distribution of the African
American population in the five metro Atlanta core counties between 1970 and 2020 by census
tracts. In 1970, census tracts with a majority Black population were largely found in the city of
Atlanta, a few areas in DeKalb County, and the southernmost census tract in Fulton County. By
1990, nearly all the census tracts in the city of Atlanta south and west of downtown as well as most
of the census tracts in South Fulton and South DeKalb counties were majority Black. A few majority
census tracts had also become majority Black in Clayton (n=8) and Cobb (n=2) counties in 1990.
Results from the 2000 census showed that a majority of the census tracts in DeKalb County (55%)
were majority Black as were nearly half of the census tracts in Clayton (44%) and Fulton (48%)
counties. By 2010, majority Black census tracts could be found in all five core counties, with nearly
eight out of ten (78%) of these tracts located in Fulton and DeKalb Counties; more than three out of
four census tracts in Clayton County in 2010 were majority Black. The 2020 census figures indicate
that the number of majority Black census tracts has continued to increase in the five-core counties
with the additions since 2010 found in Clayton, Cobb, and Gwinnett counties (increase from 81 to
103 tracts) whereas the number of majority Black census tracts in DeKalb and Fulton counties
declined by about four percent during this same period, dropping from 241 to 232 tracts based on
2020 census geography.
Poverty. According to the 1980 decennial census, less than one in ten census tracts in metro
Atlanta’s five core counties had a poverty rate of 30 percent or higher (nationally, 12.5 percent of
persons had incomes below the poverty level); all but one of those 55 census tracts were in the city of
Atlanta. That pattern remained stable over the next two decades. The 2000 census reported 54
census tracts with poverty rates of 30 percent or higher; all but three were in the city of Atlanta (one
in Cobb County and two in DeKalb County). The number of high poverty census tracts in metro
Atlanta’s five core counties increased from 54 in 2000 to 93 in 2010 and high poverty census tracts
could be found in all five counties. The largest increases in high poverty census tracts during this
period were in Fulton and DeKalb counties (12 and 13 additional tracts, respectively) followed by
Gwinnett (7), Clayton (4), and Cobb (3) counties.
The suburbanization of poverty in metro Atlanta’s core counties further accelerated between 2010
and 2016 as the number of high poverty census tracts increased to 124, which is about one out of five
(19.6%) census tracts in these five counties. The largest increases were in DeKalb County (from 17 to
30 tracts) and Clayton County (from 4 to 14 tracts). Since 2000, the increase in high poverty census

27
Figure 8. Percent of Population Non-Hispanic Black, Metro Atlanta Core Counties, 1970-2020

1970

1980

28
Figure 8, cont’d

1990

2000

29
Figure 8, cont’d

2010

2020
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population, 1970-2020.

30
tracts in DeKalb County (from 4 to 30) has been nearly twice as great as the additions in Clayton
and Fulton Counties (14 each) and more than three times as great as those in Cobb and Gwinnet
counties (8 each).
The metro Atlanta trends regarding the suburbanization of poverty are consistent with national
trends. As noted in a recent Brookings Institution study, during the 1990s the rate of increase in
poverty in the suburbs outpaced that in central cities for the first time and that trend accelerated
further in the 2000s, as the number of poor in the suburbs increased by more than 53 percent
between 2000 and 2010, twice the rate of increase recorded in cities. 37 By the middle of the decade,
according to Census Bureau ACS data, the number of poor residing in the suburbs surpassed the
number of poor living in cities. Though more poor persons now lived in the suburbs, the poverty rate
in cities remained higher than in suburban communities; in 2010, more than one in five city
residents (21%) lived in poverty compared to about one in nine suburban residents (11%). 38 The
Brookings study noted that the Atlanta metro area had the fourth highest percentage point change
in the suburban poverty rate (13.9) between 2000 and 2010 among the 100 metropolitan areas it
analyzed. The study also noted that the rise in suburban poverty was not directly the result of poor
city residents moving to the suburbs—“poverty did not trade one location for the other but instead
affected both cities and suburbs as it grew.” 39 The report also pointed out that while some of the
largest increases in suburban poverty in Atlanta were found in the close-in suburban counties of
Clayton, DeKalb, and Gwinnett, some of the larger increases were in outlying western and northern
areas of the region. 40
Nationally, poverty rates began to turn in 2014 and according to the Census Bureau’s most recent
annual report on income and poverty, declined to 10.5 percent in 2019, which was the lowest poverty
rate since estimates were published in 1959. 41 The national poverty rate increased by about one
percentage point in 2020 to 11.4 percent, a turn due largely to the 2020 recession associated with the
COVID-19 pandemic. Whether poverty rates continue to rise remain to be seen. By comparison,
during the Great Recession the poverty rate increased by about two percentage points, rising from
12.5 percent in 2007 to 14.3 percent in 2009. 42
The most recent small area data available on poverty is the Census Bureau’s 2015-2019 five-year
estimates from the American Community Survey. For the five core counties in Metro Atlanta the
ACS five-year estimates show the number of high poverty census tracts declined from 93 in 2006-
2010 to 69 in 2015-2019, a decline of 25.8 percent. In DeKalb County, the number of high poverty
tracts declined from 17 to 14 during that same time period. Figure 9 shows the spatial distribution of
poverty in Metro Atlanta’s five core counties at the census tract level between 1979 and 2019.

37 Elizabeth Kneebone and Alan Berube, Confronting Suburban Poverty in America (Washington, DC: The

Brookings Institution, 2013), p. 17.

38 Ibid., p. 19.
39 Ibid., p. 20.
40 Ibid., p. 27.
41Emily A. Shrider, Melissa Kollar, Frances Chen, and Jessica Semega, Income and Poverty in the United
States: 2020, (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, September 2021), p. 14.
42 Ibid.

31
Figure 9. Percent of Persons with Income Below Poverty, Metro Atlanta Core Counties, 1979-2019

1979

1989

32
Figure 9, cont’d

1999

2010

33
Figure 9, cont’d

2019
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population, 1970-2000; American Community Survey, 5-Year
Estimates, 2006-2010 and 2015-2019.

Racial and Economic Segregation. According to a recent analysis of 287 metropolitan areas that
used a consistent definition of metropolitan boundaries, the number of hypersegregated metropolitan
areas declined by about half between 1970 and 2010 based on measures of Black-White
segregation. 43 The study found that while the number of hypersegregated areas declined, the level of
segregation within those areas remained high. Hypersegregation was defined by Douglas Massey
and Nancy Denton as metropolitan areas with high levels of segregation on at least four of the five
dimensions of segregation they identified in an earlier analysis. 44 Nearly half of the 52 metropolitan
areas that were ever hypersegregated between 1970 and 2010 are in the South, including Atlanta,
though Atlanta was not among the 21 metropolitan areas that remained hypersegregated in 2010.

43 Douglas S. Massey and Jonathan Tannen, “A Research Note on Trends in Black Hypersegregation,”

Demography 52 (2015): 1025-1034.

44 These dimensions are unevenness (blacks and whites are unevenly distributed across a metropolitan area),

isolation (African Americans live in predominantly black neighborhoods), clustering (neighborhoods with black
residents are clustered together geographically), concentration (the relative amount of space inhabited by
African Americans in a metropolitan area), and centralization (blacks reside in areas near the center of the
metropolitan region). See Douglas S. Massey and Nancy A. Denton, “The Dimensions of Residential
Segregation,” Social Forces, 67 (1988): 281-315.

34
Birmingham was the only metro area in the South among the eight metro areas that were
hypersegregated on all five dimensions in 2010. 45
One of the most frequently cited measures of segregation is the dissimilarity index, which taps the
unevenness dimension. This measure, which ranges from 0 to 100, indicates the proportion of Whites
(or Blacks) that would need to move to another neighborhood (census tract) for Whites and Blacks to
be evenly distributed across all neighborhoods in the geographic reference area (e.g., metropolitan
area). For example, a dissimilarity index value of 65 for a metropolitan area would indicate that 65
percent of one population (Black or White) would need to move to another neighborhood in the metro
area for Whites and Blacks to be evenly distributed across all neighborhoods in the metropolitan
area. Dissimilarity index scores of 60 or greater are considered to represent very high segregation,
scores of 40-50 generally indicate a moderate level of segregation, and scores of 30 or below
represents a low level of segregation.
According to the American Communities Project at Brown University, which has compiled historical
segregation scores for cities and metropolitan areas, the city of Atlanta has consistently ranked as
one of the nation’s most segregated cities between 1980 and 2010 according to the Black-White
dissimilarity index. Among major cities, Atlanta’s segregation score of 79.6 in 1980 ranked 15th
highest and declined to 74.1 in 2010, when the city ranked as the nation’s fifth most segregated
city. 46 Most of the ranked cities (164 of 188) were less segregated in 2010 than 1970, with nearly 50
cities improving their segregation scores by 20 points or more. The greatest improvements were

Figure 10. Black-White Segregation Scores for Metro Atlanta Core Counties, 1970-2020

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020

Metro 5 Clayton Cobb DeKalb Fulton Gwinnett

Source: Analysis of U.S. Bureau of the Census, Decennial Census of Population, various years.

45 The others were Baltimore, Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, Flint, Milwaukee, and St. Louis. Massey and

Tannen, p. 1031.
46 The most segregated cities in 2010 on the black-white dissimilarity index were Chicago (.825), New York

(.814), Miami (.755), and Fort Lauderdale (.742).

35
recorded in East Los Angeles (-45) and Hollywood, FL (-40); notable improvements by Southern cities
included Savannah (-31), San Antonio (-25), Jacksonville (-25), and Charlotte (-20). More than half of
the 24 cities that experienced increased segregation between 1970 and 2010 were in the West, most
of which were not the primary cities in their metropolitan areas.
At the metropolitan level, Atlanta fares much better. The region’s Black-White dissimilarity index
declined from 76.9 in 1980 (35th highest among the 349 metro areas ranked) to 58.3 in 2010 (64th
highest among 384 metro areas). Historical scores for metropolitan areas were computed for a
constant boundary based on 2010 metropolitan boundaries to enhance comparisons across time.
More than nine out of ten of the nation’s metropolitan areas improved their Black-White segregation
scores between 1970 and 2010. Sixty-four metro areas improved their scores by 20 points or more,
led by Odessa (-39) and Midland (-37) in Texas and Port St. Lucie (-35) in Florida. Among the
nation’s larger metropolitan areas, the greatest reductions in segregation were recorded in Tampa
(-24), Dallas (-23), Fort Worth (-22), Orlando (-22), and Phoenix (-20). Metro Atlanta had the 75th
greatest improvement among metropolitan areas in Black-White segregation (-18.6).
Figure 10 displays the Black-White dissimilarity scores for the five core counties in metro Atlanta as
well as the total score for the five-county area between 1970 and 2020. The figure shows two distinct
clusters of county line graphs, with Fulton and DeKalb counties along with the five-county total
(which is strongly influenced by the greater population totals in Fulton and DeKalb, particularly in
the early years of the series) reporting higher levels of Black-White segregation and the other three
counties (Clayton, Cobb, and Gwinnett) showing lower levels of segregation. Note, however, that the

Figure 11. Economic Segregation in Metro Atlanta Core Counties, 1980-2019

Index of Dissimilarity, Poor-Non-Poor Comparisons

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

1980 1990 2000 2010 2020

Metro 5 Clayton Cobb DeKalb Fulton Gwinnett

Source: Analysis of U.S. Bureau of the Census, Decennial Census of Population, various years, and
American Community Survey, 2015-2019 Five-Year Estimates.

36
counties were more widely dispersed in their segregation scores in 1970 than in 2020. Most counties
have lower levels of Black-White segregation, as measured by the dissimilarity index, in 2020 than
was the case in the 1970-1990 period. DeKalb County’s segregation trajectory stands apart from the
other four counties. The Black-White dissimilarity index score fell sharply in DeKalb County
between 1970 and 1990, dropping from 80 to 63 and then rose steadily over the next two decades,
rising to 76 in 2010 and then fell slightly to 72 in 2020. Thus, while the county’s Black and White
population shares have remained fairly constant between 2000 and 2020 (see Figure 7, page 26),
segregation has increased as most of the county’s census tracts have become either predominantly
Black or White (see Figure 8, pages 28-30). 47
Figure 11 presents one measure of economic segregation in metro Atlanta’s five core counties based
on dissimilarity index scores for poor-nonpoor persons between 1980 and 2019. Overall, the chart
shows lower levels of economic segregation than Black-White segregation, with Fulton, DeKalb, and
the five-county metro area total showing Black-White dissimilarity index scores about twice as great
as their poor-nonpoor dissimilarity index scores. The chart also indicates a much narrower range of
variation across the counties and strong convergence in their economic segregation scores between
1980 and 2000. Trends in economic segregation in the Atlanta region increased between 2000 and
2019, and the five core counties returned to a more dispersed pattern of economic inequality. The gap
in economic segregation scores between the counties with the highest (Fulton) and lowest (Clayton)
economic segregation was 21 points, almost as large as the gap in 1980 (25 points).
Another perspective on economic inequality is shown in Table 7, which reports the Gini coefficients,
the most commonly used measure of income inequality, and the ratio of the average incomes of the
top one percent of the income distribution to the bottom 99 percent of the income distribution for the

Table 7. Measures of Income Inequality in Metro Atlanta Core Counties

Gini Coefficient, 20191 Ratio of top 1% to bottom 99% average family

income, 20152
County
Rank3 Percentile Value Rank3 Percentile Ratio
Clayton 2518 20 .41 2,827 8 8.8
Cobb 1342 57 .45 436 86 19.7
DeKalb 343 89 .49 458 85 19.4
Fulton 36 99 .54 32 99 42.3
Gwinnett 2161 31 .43 1,131 63 14.6
Atlanta Metro 247 75 .47 80 91 23.2
Sources:
1 U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey, 2014-2019 Five-Year Estimates, Table B19083.
2Estelle Sommeiller and Mark Price, “Income inequality in the U.S. by state, metropolitan area, and
county,” Economic Policy Institute, July 2018.
3 Number of Counties ranked: Gini Coefficient analysis, n=3,142; income ratio analysis, n=3,061;
Number of metro/micro areas ranked: Gini Coefficient analysis, n=998; income ratio analysis,
n=916

47 In 2016, nearly six out of ten DeKalb County census tracts (57%) were 70 percent or more black (39%) or

white (18%).

37
five core counties and the 29-county Atlanta metropolitan area. The Gini coefficient ranges from 0
(perfect equality, everyone has the same income) to 1 (perfect inequality, one resident earned all the
income and everyone else earned none). For each indicator, Table 7 reports the county’s (metro
area’s) rank, its percentile (the percentage of counties or metropolitan areas with lower scores), and
the indicator’s value.
Fulton and DeKalb counties both have a high level of income inequality as measured by the Gini
index, with 99 and 91 percent of U.S. counties respectively having lower levels of income equality.
Metro Atlanta also has a moderately high level of income inequality as 79 percent of U.S. metro have
lower levels of inequality as measured by the Gini index. A similar pattern holds for the ratio of
average incomes between the top one percent and the bottom 99 percent of the income distribution.
In Fulton County the average income among the top 1 percent of families is more than 37 times
greater than the average income of the bottom 99 percent of families. In DeKalb and Cobb counties,
the average income of the top one percent of families is 18 times greater than the average income of
the bottom 99 percent of families.
Summary. Over the past fifty years the Atlanta metropolitan area has emerged as one of the
nation’s most dynamic metropolitan regions. The Atlanta region has experienced substantial growth
in its land area, population, and economic prowess, and currently ranks as the nation’s ninth largest
in population (6.1 million in 2020), ninth largest in employment (2.9 million in 2021), eleventh
largest in the size of its economy ($425 billion in 2020) and had the eighth highest rate of job growth
year over year between December 2019 and December 2021 among the nation’s largest metropolitan
areas. 48 Only six metros—Austin, Dallas, Tampa, Phoenix, Nashville, and San Antonio—had total
nonfarm employment in December 2021 that exceeded their pre-pandemic levels in December 2019.
Metro Atlanta achieved 99.4 percent of its pre-pandemic employment level by the end of 2021.
Despite the dramatic demographic and economic transformation of the Atlanta metropolitan area,
large racial and class disparities remain and are deeply rooted in the geography of metro Atlanta.
The level of residential segregation in metro Atlanta remains high—particularly in the core counties
of Fulton and DeKalb—which in turn exerts strong influence on the types of neighborhoods people
live in and the access to opportunities—housing, education, jobs and services—those neighborhoods
provide.
For example, in metro Atlanta the probability a child with parents in the lowest income quintile will
rise to the top income quintile by their early thirties was only 4.5 percent, which placed metro
Atlanta 49th out of 50 metro areas ranked by their level of upward economic mobility in 2014, just
below Raleigh and slightly higher than Charlotte. 49 County level estimates of upward economic
mobility placed Fulton (99th percentile), DeKalb (97th), and Clayton (94th) counties near the very
bottom of the rankings of the 2,769 counties for which estimates were available; upward economic

48Metro areas with 1 million or more population. Data sources include U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2020
Decennial Census of Population; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Small Area Estimates, Total Nonfarm
Employment and Arizona State University, Seidman Institute, for historical data; Bureau of Economic Analysis,
GDP and Personal Income.
49 Analysis based on children in the 1980-1982 birth cohorts and their mean family incomes in 2011 and 2012

when they were approximately age 30. See Raj Chetty, Nathaniel Hendren, Patrick Kline, and Emmanuel Saez,
“Where is the Land of Opportunity? The Geography of Intergenerational Mobility in the United States,” June
2014, available at http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/assets/documents/mobility_geo.pdf. The analysis is
based on commuting zones, which are aggregations of counties, similar to metropolitan areas.

38
mobility was higher in Cobb (74th) and Gwinnett (63rd) counties. 50 Metro areas with the highest
levels of upward economic mobility were Salt Lake City, Pittsburgh, San Jose, Boston, and San
Francisco. The highest ranking southern metros were Houston (15th), Fort Worth (18th), Miami (21st),
San Antonio (24th), Austin (26th), and Dallas (27th). The study authors noted that “the fact that
children who grow up in low-income
families in Atlanta and Raleigh fare
poorly is especially noteworthy
Despite the dramatic demographic because these cities are generally
and economic transformation of considered to be booming cities in the
South with relatively high rates of job
the Atlanta metropolitan area, growth.” 51

large racial and class disparities These patterns suggest that market
forces alone have not been sufficient
remain and are deeply rooted in to overcome the racial and class
the geography of metro Atlanta. disparities that permeated the
Atlanta metro area in the 1970s and
The level of residential segregation likely have exacerbated these
disparities as the region grew and
in metro Atlanta remains high— minority and poverty populations
particularly in the core counties of decentralized in subsequent years.
Studies of access to opportunities in
Fulton and DeKalb—which in turn the Atlanta region conducted from
exerts strong influence on the types the 1980s to the present confirm that
residential segregation has continued
of neighborhoods people live in and to dampen the prospects for all
Atlantans to share in the region’s
the access to opportunities— rising prosperity.
housing, education, jobs and In 1989, The Atlanta Journal-
services—those neighborhoods Constitution received a Pulitzer Prize
for a series of investigative reports
provide. published in 1988 and 1989 that
documented discriminatory lending
practices by banks and savings and
loan institutions in metro Atlanta.
The analysis found that lenders systematically avoided home mortgage loans in Black
neighborhoods—including middle-income and affluent Black neighborhoods—and that White
applicants received five times as many home loans as Blacks of the same income; the study
concluded that “race—not home value or household income—consistently determines the lending
patterns of metro Atlanta’s largest financial institutions.” 52
In a 1991 study by Gary Orfield and Carole Ashkinaze, The Closing Door, the authors concluded that
despite suburbanization and dynamic economic growth, “analyses of the housing, schools, colleges,
job training, and employment patterns of the [Atlanta] region document the shrinking of Black

50 Author’s calculations based on data provided by the Equality of Opportunity Project. Data available at

http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/data/.
51 Chetty et al, 2014, p. 26.
ect52 Bill Dedman, “Atlanta Blacks Losing in Home Loans Scramble,” The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, May 1,
1988, p. 1.

39
opportunity in the 1980s.” 53 The authors added that “location is a key element of opportunity in
contemporary metropolitan Atlanta, and the supply of housing grew very rapidly from the mid-1970s
to the mid-1980s, permitting the Black community to expand far beyond its previous boundaries. But
the pattern of segregation has also expanded far into the suburbs…Those who were able to reduce
their financial problems by finding subsidized housing found it concentrated in areas without
connection to the mainstream society.” 54
A decade later, David Sjoquist and colleagues, wrote about The Atlanta Paradox—“a paradox of
extreme racial and economic inequality—of abject poverty in a region of tremendous wealth, of poor
and economically declining city population in the face of dramatic economic growth, and of a Black
mecca in a ‘city too busy to hate’ …confronting a highly racially segregated population and the
substantial problems associated with racism and poverty that pervade the city.” 55 They added that
“what makes Atlanta unique is its contrasts between the perception of racial harmony and the past
and present residential and employment segregation, and between the dynamic economy and the
growing economic inequality.” 56
Most recently, Elora Raymond, Kyungsoon Wang, and Dan Immergluck found that racial differences
in neighborhood composition had important implications for how neighborhoods in the Atlanta
region responded to the housing crisis that began in late 2006. The study found that even after
controlling for a variety of key neighborhood and housing market characteristics such as poverty
rate, age of housing, owner occupancy, and vacancy rate, zip codes with larger Black and Hispanic
populations were most likely to experience “steep rates of price decline with only modest or
essentially no recovery following the crisis;” White middle- and upper-income neighborhoods, on the
other hand, “experience[d] less volatility during the boom [2001-2006] and bust [2006-2012] and have
generally more than recovered [2012-2014] from the modest housing price declines that they did
face.” 57
While the causes of the Atlanta Paradox—and its consequences—are many, complex, and
interrelated, understanding the current affordable housing challenge in DeKalb County and its
related problems requires an understanding of the history of the development of the Atlanta region
as well as the social, economic, and demographic trends that influenced the uneven distribution of
the region’s growth. Contemporary trends facing DeKalb County and the greater Atlanta region
have been shaped by these forces as well as the public policy choices taken by local, state, and
national governments.

Gary Orfield and Carole Ashkinaze, The Closing Door: Conservative Policy and Black Opportunity, Chicago:
53

University of Chicago Press, 1991, p. 205.

54 Ibid., pp. 217-18.
55 David L. Sjoquist, “The Atlanta Paradox: Introduction,” in David L. Sjoquist, ed., The Atlanta Paradox, New

York: Russell Sage Foundaton, p. 2.

56 Ibid., p. 9.
57 Elora Raymond, Kyungsoon Wang, and Dan Immergluck, “Race and Uneven Recovery: Neighborhood Home

Value Trajectories in Atlanta Before and After the Housing Crisis,” Housing Studies, 31 (2016), p. 337.

40
 Current Trends

Economic Growth
Metropolitan Atlanta’s recovery from the Great Recession, which officially ended in 2010, has been
strong, but trails many other metro areas in the South. Real growth in gross domestic product
increased 32.5 percent between 2010 and 2020 in metro Atlanta, which was the sixth highest
increase among the nation’s top 20 metro areas and 13th largest increase among the top 50 metro
areas. Six southern metro areas had higher GDP growth rates during this period: Austin (57%),
Raleigh (46%), Charlotte (39%), Nashville (37%), San Antonio (34%), and Dallas (33%). 58 The Atlanta
Regional Commission’s (ARC) most recent Regional Economic Snapshot suggests that the region’s
economic performance has begun to accelerate. The ARC Snapshot notes employment in the Atlanta
region was only about 5,000 jobs lower than February 2020 and only about 38,000 jobs below its pre-
pandemic peak recorded in December 2019. 59 The Snapshot also noted the region’s year over year
percentage change in employment has closely tracked the nation during the pandemic and since
Summer 2021 employment growth in the region has exceeded the national rate. In addition, the
Snapshot noted that compared to other peer metros, only Atlanta and Austin showed growth in 7 of
the 10 industry sectors tracked. Like most other sectors, Atlanta’s sharpest declines were in the
Accommodations/Food and Food Service/Drinking sectors which each had employment levels more
than 10 percent below their February 2020 level as of November 2021.

Population Growth
Metro Atlanta’s standing among other metropolitan areas in terms of population change is similar to
that observed for economic growth. Total population in the Atlanta region increased 15.2 percent
between 2010 and 2020, more than double the national rate of 7.4 percent, which ranked sixth
highest among the twenty largest metro areas and 16th highest among the fifty largest metro
regions. Within the South, however, Atlanta’s standing has fallen a few notches as ten southern
metro areas among the nation’s fifty largest metros had higher population growth: Austin (33%),
Raleigh (25%), Orlando (25%), Nashville (21%), Houston (20%), Dallas (20%), Jacksonville (19%),
San Antonio (19%), Charlotte (18%), and Louisville (16%). 60

Employment Earnings
The ARC’s Regional Economic Snapshot report also notes that although earnings per job in Metro
Atlanta lag national levels, the gap has narrowed over the last couple of years as local earnings per
job have increased. The Snapshot notes that during the 19-month pre-pandemic period (July 2018 –
February 2020), wage growth in metro Atlanta was 1.6 percent, well below the national rate of 6.3
percent. That gap narrowed considerably during the pandemic (February 2020 – November 2021) as
wage growth in metro Atlanta during those 19 months was 6.4 percent compared to the national
average of 7.9 percent. That rate is still about 2 percentage points lower than the national average
and well below the inflation rate over the past few months. 61

58 Analysis of the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Accounts.

59Mike Carnathan, “Regional Snapshot: A Quick Look at Metro Atlanta’s Economy,” Atlanta Regional
Commission, January 2022.
60 Analysis of U.S. Bureau of the Census.
61 Atlanta Regional Commission, Regional Snapshot, January 2022.

41
Housing
Compared to most metropolitan areas, housing in the metro Atlanta region is very affordable.
According to a recent analysis by the Atlanta Regional Commission, metro Atlanta ranks second in
terms of housing affordability (percent of homes affordable to the median income household) in
comparison to the region’s peer metro areas. 62 Based on figures from the 2017 first quarter housing
opportunity index compiled by the National Association of Home Builders, the ARC analysis notes
72.5 percent of homes in metro Atlanta are affordable compared to the U.S. average of 60 percent. 63
Based on the most recent NAHB data, the national housing opportunity index has declined from 60
percent in 2017 to 54 percent at the end of 2021, indicating that only about half of the homes sold in
the U.S. are now affordable to families earning the median income. 64 The percentage of homes sold in
quarter 4 of 2021 that were affordable to families earning the median income in metro Atlanta
declined to 66.6 percent, though Atlanta’s
ranking nationally, regionally, and
compared to its peer metro areas
remained about the same. Nationally, As of the third quarter in 2021,
Atlanta’s rank improved to 105 from 113
whereas its rank among 11 peer metro
home prices in metro Atlanta
areas tracked by the ARC dropped from were 42 percent higher than their
second to third. Within the Southern
region, Atlanta’s ranking remained the peak prior to the Great Recession
same, 34 out of 80 metro areas.
and 23 percent higher than their
Despite its affordability, home ownership
rates dropped sharply in the Atlanta
pre-COVID peak (2020, Q1).
region between 2000 and 2015, a pattern
consistent with national trends. The ARC
reports that in six of the 10 ARC Home prices in DeKalb County
counties, home ownership rates dropped increased by 16.9 percent during
by more than 10 percentage points
between 2000 and 2015 for households calendar year 2021 and at the
with heads under 34 years of age
(DeKalb’s rate for this age group dropped
end of 2021 were 47 percent
from 31.4 to 23.0 percent). higher than prices in 2017 and
Homeownership rates declined by 10
percent or more in nine of the ten ARC three times as high as the median
counties (all but Fayette) during this price of home sales in April 2012,
same period for households with heads
between the ages of 35 and 44; DeKalb’s the trough of the Great Recession
rate for this age group dropped from 60.7
to 43.8 percent, a decline of nearly 17
for most metro Atlanta counties.
percentage points. The smallest declines
in homeownership rates were reported for

62 Peer regions include Boston, Chicago, Charlotte, Dallas, Denver, Houston, Minneapolis, Phoenix, San

Francisco, Seattle, and Washington, DC. See Atlanta Regional Commission, Regional Snapshot: Affordable
Housing, June 2017, p. 3
63 Ibid.
64Analysis of National Association of Home Builders, “NAHB/Wells Fargo Housing Opportunity Index (HOI),”
Retrieved March 8, 2022.

42
households with heads aged 45 or older; only Clayton County had a decline of 10 percentage points
or more. In DeKalb, homeownership rates among households with heads 45 and over declined from
76 to 70.5 percent. 65
Homeownership rates in metro Atlanta began to increase in 2017 and increased steadily through
2020, rising from 62.4 percent in 2017 to 66.4, an increase of four percentage points. Nationally,
homeownership rates in metro areas increased about three percentage points during the same period
(62.3 to 65.2). 66 Much of that gain, however, was lost during 2021 as homeownership rates in metro
Atlanta declined from 66.6 percent in the first quarter of 2021 to 63.2 percent in quarter four of
2021, though the decline of 3.4 percentage points was within the margin of error.
As shown in Figure 12, home prices in the Atlanta region did not increase as sharply in the mid-
2000s as was the case in other major metropolitan areas. Nonetheless, recovery from the housing
market collapse and the Great Recession has generally taken longer in Atlanta than in other metro
areas, due in part to a sharper decline in home prices between June 2011 and March 2012. Atlanta,
however, exceeded its pre-recession peak (136.47 in July 2007) in April 2017 and home prices in the
Atlanta metro area have continued to rise at rates comparable to other major metro areas. Atlanta
reached its post-Great Recession peak in 61 months, which was about 9 months faster than the
average trough to peak climb for the 20 metro areas tracked by the Core Logic-Case Shiller index
(Table 8). As of the third quarter in 2021, home prices in Atlanta were 42 percent higher than their
peak prior to the Great Recession and 23 percent higher than their pre-COVID peak (2020, Q1).
According to median home sales price data from Georgia FMLS (First Multiple Listing Service),
home prices in DeKalb County increased by 16.9 percent during calendar year 2021 and at the end of
2021 were 47 percent higher than prices in 2017 and three times as high as the median price of home
sales in April 2012, the trough of the Great Recession for most metro Atlanta counties (Figure 13).
The largest percentage increases in home prices during the past decade (2010-2020) have been in the
zip code areas inside the perimeter in Fulton County south of I-20 and in DeKalb County just north
of I-20 (Candler McAfee, Belvedere Park, and the area just east of Avondale Estates) which have
seen the median home sales price increase five-fold (Figure 14). The highest median home prices in
2020 were recorded in the zip codes covering the Druid Hills and Brookhaven neighborhoods in
DeKalb County and the neighborhoods of Virgina Highlands, Morningside, and Buckhead in Fulton
County (Figure 15).

65 Ibid., p.4.
66 U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Survey/Housing Vacancy Survey, March 9, 2021.

43
Figure 12. S&P CoreLogic Case-Shiller Home Price Indices, Selected Metro Areas, January 2000 – September 2021
Seasonally adjusted; January 2000 = 100

400.00

350.00

300.00

Composite 20
250.00

200.00

150.00

100.00 Atlanta

50.00

0.00
Q1 00 Q1 01 Q1 02 Q1 03 Q1 04 Q1 05 Q1 06 Q1 07 Q1 08 Q1 09 Q1 10 Q1 11 Q1 12 Q1 13 Q1 14 Q1 15 Q1 16 Q1 17 Q1 18 Q1 19 Q1 20 Q1 21

Composite 20 Miami Washington Tampa Phoenix Boston Chicago

Atlanta Dallas Charlotte San Diego Denver Detroit

Source: S&P CoreLogic Case-Shiller Home Price Indices, various months, available from Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, FRED.

44
Table 8. S&P CoreLogic Case-Shiller Home Price Indices, Composite 20 Metropolitan Areas, 2000-2021
Trough to
Peak Trough Peak to Trough October 2021 Trough to New Peak
% No. % No.
Metro Area Index Date Index Date change Months Index change Date Months
Composite 20 207 Apr-06 137 Mar-12 -33.8 71 279 103.6 Jan-18 70

Northeast
Boston 181 Nov-05 149 Apr-09 -17.7 41 282 89.3 Jul-15 75
New York 217 May-06 161 Mar-12 -25.8 70 247 53.4 Nov-20 104
Washington, DC 253 Mar-06 170 Apr-09 -32.8 37 283 66.5 Oct-20 138

Midwest
Chicago 171 Mar-07 107 Apr-12 -37.4 61 170 58.9 No no
Cleveland 123 Jan-06 97 Feb-12 -21.1 73 157 61.9 Feb-19 84
Detroit 128 Mar-06 67 Apr-11 -47.7 61 158 135.8 Jun-19 98
Minneapolis 174 Apr-06 110 Mar-11 -36.8 59 216 96.4 Jan-19 94

South
Atlanta 136 Jul-07 83 Mar-12 -39.0 56 200 141.0 Apr-17 61
Charlotte 136 Aug-07 108 Jan-12 -20.6 53 222 105.6 Mar-16 50
Dallas 126 Jun-07 112 Feb-09 -11.1 19 256 128.6 May-13 51
Miami 281 Dec-06 137 Apr-11 -51.2 52 331 141.6 Mar-21 119
Tampa 239 May-06 125 Nov-11 -47.7 66 310 148.0 Oct-20 107

West
Denver 139 Mar-06 123 Feb-09 -11.5 35 288 134.1 May-13 51
Las Vegas 235 Aug-06 90 Mar-12 -61.7 67 259 187.8 Jun-21 111
Los Angeles 273 Apr-06 160 May-09 -41.4 37 370 131.3 Jan-18 104
Phoenix 227 Jun-06 100 Sep-11 -55.9 63 295 195.0 Dec-20 111
Portland 185 Apr-07 132 Mar-12 -28.6 59 308 133.3 Sep-15 42
San Diego 252 Mar-06 145 May-09 -42.5 38 363 150.3 Feb-18 105
San Francisco 219 Mar-06 120 May-09 -45.2 38 340 183.3 Nov-15 78
Seattle 192 Jul-07 129 Feb-12 -32.8 55 348 169.8 Mar-16 49

Source: Author’s calculations from S&P CoreLogic Case-Shiller Home Price Indices.

45
Figure 13. Median Home Sales Price, Metro Atlanta Core Counties, 2008-2021.
Monthly median home sales price, rolling 12 months, nominal dollars

450,000

400,000

350,000

300,000

250,000

200,000

150,000

100,000

50,000

DeKalb Clayton Cobb Fulton Gwinnett

Percentage Change* DeKalb Clayton Cobb Fulton Gwinnett

2020-21 16.9 25.0 17.7 15.6 22.8
2019-20 13.5 8.8 10.3 7.9 9.8
2018-19 2.0 7.3 4.1 5.4 6.3
2017-18 8.9 10.9 8.2 4.9 9.1
2016-17 5.0 9.3 6.2 5.6 8.4
2015-16 5.5 40.0 6.8 3.8 8.0
2014-15 11.2 26.0 4.8 6.1 8.5
2013-14 10.8 29.6 10.6 8.9 11.3
2012-13 66.5 130.7 28.3 28.6 35.1
2011-12 8.5 10.9 7.2 12.9 5.5
2010-11 -19.6 -8.6 -18.8 -8.8 -21.6
2009-10 -5.5 -7.5 -2.9 7.8 -7.3
2008-09 -22.9 -36.5 -7.9 -10.9 -15.3
2017-21 47.4 61.9 46.3 37.9 56.3
2012-21** 296.6 488.2 170.3 157.7 224.4
2008-12 -36.4 -40.5 -22.1 -1.1 -35.0

Source: Georgia First Multiple Listing Service.

* December to December
** April 2012 – December 2021

46
Figure 14. Change in Median Home Sales Price by Zip Code, Atlanta Metro Area, 2010-2021.

Source: Georgia First Multiple Listing Service.

Mortgage Delinquencies and Foreclosures

Atlanta was one of the metropolitan areas hit hardest by the foreclosure crisis that began to attract
national attention in the mid-2000s. For much of the period leading up to the peak of the foreclosure
crisis, mortgage delinquency rates in metro Atlanta were substantially higher than national rates
(Figure 16), a pattern that was consistent for both early stage delinquencies (30-89 days), which
represents homeowners who have missed one or two payments, and more serious delinquencies (90
days or more), indicating three or more missed payments. 67 As delinquency rates began to decline in

67 The data come from the National Mortgage Database, a joint project of the Consumer Financial Protection

Bureau and the Federal Housing Finance Agency. The core data in the NMDB come from data maintained by
one of the top three nationwide credit repositories. The NMDB has a nationally representative, 5 percent
sample of all outstanding, closed-end, first-lien, 1–4 family residential mortgages. The 30–89 mortgage
delinquency rate is a measure of early stage delinquencies. It generally captures borrowers that have missed
one or two payments. This rate can be an early indicator of mortgage market health. However, this rate is
seasonally volatile and sensitive to temporary economic shocks. The 90–day delinquency rate is a measure of
serious delinquencies. It generally captures borrowers that have missed three or more payments. This rate
measures more severe economic distress. For more information see https://www.consumerfinance.gov/data-
research/mortgage-performance-trends/about-the-data/.

47
Figure 15. Median Home Sales Price by Zip Code, Atlanta Metro Area, 2021
Thousands of dollars

Source: Georgia First Multiple Listing Service.

2010, metro Atlanta delinquency rates continued to exceed national rates, though beginning in 2015,
metro Atlanta’s 90-day delinquency rates converged with national rates and the gap between
Atlanta and national rates for shorter term delinquencies narrowed.
A similar pattern holds regarding the relationship between mortgage delinquency rates in DeKalb
County as compared to the metro Atlanta rates (Figure 17). While DeKalb’s delinquency rates were
consistently higher than those for the metro area for most of the time period plotted (during both the
rise and fall of rates), by 2016 90-day plus delinquency rates for DeKalb County were relatively
comparable to those for metro Atlanta as a whole and all of the core counties except for Clayton,
where delinquencies continued to exceed the metro wide rate. For the first six months of 2021 long-
term delinquency rates in DeKalb County were at or below the rates for metro Atlanta and the
nation. Short-term delinquency rates in DeKalb County were slightly above the metro and national
rates; for June 2021, the most recent figures available, the short-term delinquency rate in DeKalb
County was 0.9 percent compared to 0.7 for metro Atlanta and 0.6 for the nation.

48
Figure 16. Percentage of Mortgages Delinquent, U.S. and Atlanta Metro Area, 2008-2021

8.0

7.0

6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0
2008-01
2008-06
2008-11
2009-04
2009-09
2010-02
2010-07
2010-12
2011-05
2011-10
2012-03
2012-08
2013-01
2013-06
2013-11
2014-04
2014-09
2015-02
2015-07
2015-12
2016-05
2016-10
2017-03
2017-08
2018-01
2018-06
2018-11
2019-04
2019-09
2020-02
2020-07
2020-12
2021-05
Metro 30-89 days National 30-89 days Metro 90+ days National 90+ days

Source: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Mortgage Performance Trends, Data through June 2021.
Available at https://www.consumerfinance.gov/data-research/mortgage-performance-trends/download-
the-data/

The CARES Act provided temporary relief to homeowners with federally-backed mortgages from
foreclosure proceedings beginning on March 18, 2020 if they were financially impacted by the
coronavirus pandemic. The federal provisions also provided homeowners facing the risk of
foreclosure with 180 days of mortgage forbearance. These protections were extended several times
and ended on January 1, 2022.
Some federal agencies, such as HUD, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the Veterans
Administration have provided financial assistance during the pandemic that could aid affected
homeowners by reducing their monthly mortgage payments by as much as 25 percent. In addition,
the federal government also provided $10 billion in financial assistance to the states through the
American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 to help homeowners stay in their homes by catching up on
delinquent mortgage payments and utility bills; these funds were to become available in early 2022.
The Georgia Department of Community Affairs will oversee $354 million in ARPA funds to prevent
Georgia homeowners from mortgage delinquency, default, foreclosure, and loss of utilities.

49
 0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
2008-01 2008-01

the-data/
2008-06 2008-06
2008-11 2008-11
2009-04 2009-04
2009-09 2009-09
2010-02 2010-02
2010-07 2010-07

Metro Atlanta
Metro Atlanta
2010-12 2010-12
2011-05 2011-05
2011-10 2011-10
2012-03 2012-03
2012-08 2012-08

Clayton
Clayton
2013-01 2013-01
2013-06 2013-06
2013-11 2013-11
2014-04 2014-04

50
Cobb
Cobb
2014-09 2014-09
2015-02 2015-02
2015-07 2015-07

Delinquent 90+ days

2015-12 2015-12
Delinquent 30 - 89 days

DeKalb
DeKalb

2016-05 2016-05
2016-10 2016-10
2017-03 2017-03
2017-08 2017-08
2018-01 2018-01

Fulton
Fulton

2018-06 2018-06
2018-11 2018-11
2019-04 2019-04
Figure 17. Percentage of Mortgages Delinquent, Metro Atlanta Core Counties, 2008-2021

2019-09 2019-09
2020-02 2020-02

Gwinnett
Gwinnett

2020-07 2020-07
2020-12 2020-12

Source: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Mortgage Performance Trends, Data through June 2021.
Available at https://www.consumerfinance.gov/data-research/mortgage-performance-trends/download-
2021-05 2021-05
Figure 18. Number of Foreclosure Filings, Metro Atlanta Core Counties, 2001-2021

30,000

Gwinnett
25,000

Fulton
20,000

DeKalb

15,000
Cobb

10,000
Clayton

5,000

-
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Source: Equity Depot, Atlanta Foreclosure Report, various years.

Many state and local governments also issued state legislation, executive orders, or local ordinances
that banned foreclosure during the pandemic. In Georgia, the state Supreme Court issued a
statewide judicial emergency in March 2020 and extended that emergency through June 12, 2020.
The order allowed lower courts to use their discretion to continue eviction and foreclose proceedings.
Regarding foreclosures, Georgia opted to follow the federal moratorium requirements issued by the
Federal Home Financing Agency, which as noted above ended on January 1, 2022.
Figure 18 reports the trends in the total number of foreclosure filings for the five core counties in
Metro Atlanta between 2001 and 2021 based on Equity Depot’s Atlanta Foreclosure Report. The data
show that most counties followed a similar trend between 2001 and 2007 and 2014 and 2019. All five
counties saw their peak volume in foreclosure filings in 2010 and all have declined steadily since,
with most returning to their 2003 levels by 2014. From their Great Recession peak, foreclosure
filings in the five core counties declined by 91 percent between 2010 and 2019. As a result of the
federal moratorium issued during the pandemic, foreclosure filings in the five core Atlanta metro
counties continued to converge and approached zero by the end of 2021. Overall, foreclosure filings in
the five core counties between 2019 and 2021 dropped from about 9,200 to 2,400, a decline of 74
percent. In 2021, foreclosure filings in Clayton, Cobb, and Gwinnett counties were each below 500,
less than 600 in DeKalb County, and nearly 800 in Fulton County.

Rent Trends in Metro Atlanta

According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition’s (NLIHC) most recent Gap report,
nationally there were only 37 units of affordable and available housing for every 100 extremely low-

51
income renter households (income up to 30 percent of the area median income) in 2019. 68 According
to the report, without housing assistance, a family of four with income at the poverty level could only
afford an apartment renting at $655 a month or less in 2020 whereas a modest two-bedroom rental
home at the fair market rent was nearly twice as high ($1,246). Based on the NLIHC’s analysis,
there were only 60 units of affordable and available housing for every 100 households at 50 percent
of the areawide median income nationwide. The 2021 gap report estimates a deficit of 116,000
affordable and available rental units for extremely low-income households in metro Atlanta and a
deficit of 141,000 units for households at or below 50% AMI. 69
According to the NLIHC’s 2021 Out of Reach report, the fair market rent for a two-bedroom
apartment in metro Atlanta was $1,185 in 2021, which would require an hourly wage of $22.79 to be
affordably housed, which is equivalent to three full-time jobs at minimum wage. 70 While rent
increases averaged in the range of four to six percent annually between 2015 and 2020, rents in
metro Atlanta on average were 20 percent higher at the end of 2021 as compared to the end of 2020
according to an analysis of the Atlanta rental market based on data provided by Apartment
Data.com (Table 9, Figure 19). 71

Table 9. Percentage Change in Metro Atlanta Average Rent by Bedroom Size and Class, 2015-2021
Weighted average rents, December to December, rolling 12 months, nominal dollars

Percent change* Efficiency 1-Bedroom 2-Bedroom 3-Bedroom Total

2020-21 18.5 22.5 20.2 16.7 20.3
2019-20 0.3 2.8 4.9 5.3 3.9
2018-19 5.1 4.2 4.8 4.9 4.5
2017-18 7.3 6.0 5.4 5.0 5.6
2016-17 5.1 5.1 5.4 4.7 5.0
2015-16 7.1 6.5 6.6 5.7 6.4
Percent change* Class A Class B Class C Class D Total
2020-21 23.7 24.3 17.5 6.8 20.3
2019-20 -0.9 5.1 7.3 4.9 3.9
2018-19 4.1 2.7 4.0 5.1 4.5
2017-18 3.4 5.8 5.1 6.0 5.6
2016-17 2.8 3.8 5.7 5.3 5.0
2015-16 4.5 5.3 6.5 5.9 6.4
Source: ApartmentData.com

68Andrew Aurand, Dan Emmanuel, Daniel Threet, Ikra Rafi, and Diane Yentel, The Gap: A Shortage of
Affordable Homes (Washington, DC: National Low Income Housing Coalition, March 2021), p. 2.
69 Ibid., Appendix B.
70Andrew Aurand, Dan Emmanuel, Ikra Rafi, Dan Threet, and Diane Yentel, Out of Reach: 2021, (Washington,
D.C.: National Low Income Housing Coalition, 2021), p. 64.
71ApartmentData.com is a research and market analysis firm that tracks rental rates, occupancy levels,
amenities, and market conditions in fourteen major metropolitan areas in the south and southwest, including
Atlanta. Their Atlanta market report includes 37 submarket areas throughout the region covering
approximately 2,000 apartment communities and more than 450,000 rental units.

52
 500
700
900
500
700
900

1,100
1,300
1,500
1,700
1,900
2,100
1,100
1,300
1,500
1,700
1,900
06/2015 06/2015
09/2015 09/2015
12/2015 12/2015
03/2016 03/2016
06/2016 06/2016

Source: ApartmentData.com.
09/2016 09/2016
12/2016 12/2016

Class A
03/2017 03/2017

Efficiency
06/2017 06/2017
09/2017 09/2017
12/2017 12/2017

Class B
1BR
03/2018 03/2018

53
06/2018 06/2018
09/2018 09/2018

2 BR

Class C
12/2018 12/2018
03/2019 03/2019
06/2019 06/2019
3 BR
09/2019 09/2019

Class D
12/2019 12/2019
Figure 19. Metro Atlanta Average Rent by Bedroom Size and Class, 2015-2021

03/2020 03/2020
Total

06/2020 06/2020
Weighted average rents, December to December, rolling 12 months, nominal dollars.

Total
09/2020 09/2020
12/2020 12/2020
03/2021 03/2021
06/2021 06/2021
09/2021 09/2021
12/2021 12/2021
Cost Burdened Households
Overall, about one out of three (30%) households in metro Atlanta paid more than 30 percent of their
household income for housing in 2019 according to the one-year 2019 estimates from the American
Community Survey. 72 About one out of five homeowners (19%) and nearly half (49%) of renter
households were cost burdened in 2019.
The prevalence of housing cost burdens was much greater for households with income less than
$50,000 (about 83% of the metro area median, just slightly above HUD’s 80% of AMI cut off for

Figure 20. Percentage of Households with Income Less Than $50,000 that are Cost Burdened, 2019
Metro Atlanta Census Tracts

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey 2015-2019 Five-Year Estimates.

72 Analysis of U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey, 2019 1-Year Estimates.

54
defining low-income households). Overall, more than two-thirds (71%) of households with income less
than $50,000 were cost burdened in 2019; almost half of owner households (49%) and more than
eight out of ten renter households (83%) were cost burdened in metro Atlanta in 2019.
Figure 20 shows that there are very few areas within the Atlanta metro area where households with
income less than $50,000 are affordably housed; the areas with the greatest concentrations of cost
burdened households with income less than $50,000 tend to be found in the core counties of Fulton,
DeKalb, Cobb, and Gwinnett.
Affordability in the Atlanta region
becomes even more problematic when
one includes transportation costs.
According to the Housing and
According to the National Low Transportation Affordability Index
Income Housing Coalition, there compiled by the Center for
Neighborhood Technology, low income
were only 37 units of affordable households at 80 percent of the areawide
median income (less than $56,000
and available housing for every annually for a family of four) in the
100 extremely low-income renter Atlanta metro region spent about two-
thirds of their income (62%) on housing
households nationally in 2019. and transportation costs in 2017, the
To be affordably housed in metro most recent year for which data are
available. Atlanta ranks seventh (tied
Atlanta, where the fair market with Charlotte and Detroit) among the
nation’s 25 largest metro areas in terms
rent for a modest two-bedroom of housing and transportation cost
apartment was $1,185 in 2021, a burden. Miami (74%), Riverside (73%),
and Los Angeles (69%) are the metro
renter household would have to areas with the highest rates of housing
earn an hourly wage of $22.79, and transportation cost burdened
households; Washington, DC (49%) and
equivalent to three full-time Minneapolis (53%) are the major metros
with the lowest rates. 73
minimum wage jobs.
Figure 21 shows the spatial distribution
of the average combined housing and
transportation costs for low-income
households at 80 percent of AMI for the
Atlanta metro area. Households with the greatest housing and transportation costs tend to reside in
census tracts in the northern sections of the metro area between interstates 75 and 85.

73 Center for Neighborhood Technology, H+T Affordability Index, 2017 Update, Accessed February 18, 2022.

55
Figure 21. Housing and Transportation Cost Index for Households at 80 Percent of AMI, 2017
Metro Atlanta Census Tracts

Source: Analysis of Center for Neighborhood Technology, H+T Affordability Index, 2017 Update.

56
Section 3
Housing Needs and Challenges in DeKalb County

Overview
Housing Units. The total number of housing units in DeKalb County increased 19 percent
between 2000 and 2019, which was the smallest increase among the metro Atlanta core counties
and exceeded the growth rate in only two of the six comparison counties (Jefferson, AL, and Prince
George’s, MD). The proportion of renter-occupied housing units increased from 41.5 percent in
2000 to 45.4 percent in 2019 while owner-occupied housing units declined from 58.5 percent to
54.6 percent. The median value of owner-occupied homes in DeKalb County was $215,600 in 2019,
which was seventh highest among the 11 comparison counties.
Vacant Housing. DeKalb County’s housing vacancy rate in 2019 (9.4%) was the third lowest
among the five metro Atlanta core counties, trailing Gwinnett (5.1%) and Cobb (6.6%). The
largest number of vacant housing units are found in census tracts in Southwest DeKalb and
Dunwoody.
Rental Housing. Over the last twenty years the county’s rental housing stock has been
substantially transformed. In 2000, the county’s rental market was predominantly found in small
apartment buildings (61%) with 19 percent single-family rentals and 19.7 percent in large
apartment buildings. By 2019 less than half of the county’s rental units were in small apartment
buildings (44%) whereas single family rentals had increased their share to 30 percent and large
apartment buildings now account for one out of every four rental units.
Rents. Overall, the average rent in DeKalb County rose 23 percent between 2019 and 2021. The
largest percentage increases during this period occurred in the central areas of DeKalb County,
generally encompassing the area north of I-20 and outside I-285 as well as the Belvedere Park and
Candler-McAfee areas inside I-285, which are the areas that had the lowest average rents in 2019.
Cost Burdened Households. Overall, one out of three (35%) DeKalb households had a housing
affordability problem with about one out of five reporting a cost burden and 16 percent a severe
housing cost burden in 2019. The prevalence of housing affordability problems is highest among
lower income households. About eight out of ten extremely low income (30% AMI) and very low-
income (50% AMI) households in DeKalb County were housing cost burdened. Nearly 70 percent of
extremely low-income households were severely cost burdened. More than half of low-income
households (80% AMI) were housing cost burdened in 2019.
Declining Affordable Housing Stock. The share of affordable rental units has steadily
declined in DeKalb and most of the other comparison counties between 2000 and 2019. In DeKalb,
the proportion of affordable rental units for low income households (80% AMI) declined from 93
percent in 2000 to 80 percent in 2019; the share of affordable rental units for very low income
households declined 54 percent to 34 percent and the share of affordable apartments for very low
income households declined from eight to six percent over the same period.
Housing Units with Physical Problems. The proportion of rental housing units with only a
physical problem was 5.2 percent in DeKalb County in 2019, which placed it in the middle of the
distribution among the 11 counties examined. The census tracts with the greatest concentrations
of rental housing with physical problems are generally found in the northern and central areas of
the county.

57
This section presents an analysis of housing needs and challenges in DeKalb County. It opens with a
brief discussion of the selection of comparison counties for benchmarking DeKalb’s housing
conditions, trends, and policy response. In addition to the four other core counties in metro Atlanta
(Fulton, Clayton, Cobb, and Gwinnett), we also identified six large urban counties with demographic
and economic characteristics similar to DeKalb to include in the analysis. Topics examined in this
section include characteristics of DeKalb’s housing stock, cost-burdened households, the availability
of affordable housing, the housing affordability gap, and housing conditions.

Comparison Counties
In addition to the five core counties in the Atlanta metropolitan area, we compiled a comparison
group of counties for examining housing needs, strategies, and policy responses. The comparison
counties were derived from a cluster analysis of large urban counties in the U.S. We began the
analysis with 68 large urban counties (populations of 500,000 or more in 2015) that contained no
more than 10 percent of the population of the primary city in the county’s metropolitan area. 74 We
then conducted a cluster analysis based on several measures of county populations (population size,
population change, race and ethnicity, educational attainment, employment, and household income);
housing (total housing units, housing tenure, vacancy rates, median housing value, median rent, age
of housing); and local economies (number of jobs). 75 We then selected the five counties in the
Southeast whose composite scores on the combination of included variables most closely matched the
score for DeKalb County. These counties and the primary city of their metropolitan area included:
Jefferson County, AL (Birmingham); Polk County, FL (Tampa); Volusia County, FL (Orlando); Anne
Arundel County, MD (Baltimore); Prince George’s County, MD (Washington, DC); and Fort Bend, TX
(Houston). 76 Table 10 presents selected characteristics for DeKalb County, the four other core
counties in metro Atlanta, and the six comparison counties.

Population
In terms of population size, DeKalb County (764,382) is the fourth largest county in the Atlanta
metropolitan area, ranking just below Cobb County (766,149) based on the 2020 Census. Population
in the six comparison counties ranges from 674,721 in Jefferson County to 967,2015 in Prince
George’s County. DeKalb County had the lowest population growth among the five metro Atlanta
counties between 2000 and 2020 (14.8%); among the comparison counties population change over
this period ranged from 1.9 percent in Jefferson County to an increase of 132 percent in Fort Bend
County with the other four counties experiencing population growth between 20 and 50 percent.
Regarding race and ethnicity, non-Hispanic Whites comprised a majority in three of the eleven
counties included in the analysis ranging from 54 percent in Polk County to 68 percent in Volusia
County. The non-Hispanic White population was 28 percent in DeKalb County; only Clayton (9%)
and Prince George’s (11%) had smaller percentages. DeKalb (50%), Clayton (69%), and Prince
George’s (59%) counties had majority Black populations. The two most diverse counties included in
the analysis, in terms of race and ethnicity, are Gwinnett and Fort Bend counties, with each having

74 DeKalb County included 6.9 percent of the city of Atlanta’s population in 2015.
75 See Appendix Table A-3 for a complete list of variables included in the cluster analysis.
76 Given the small number of counties in the Southeast that met our selection criteria for the comparison

counties, we added Jefferson County, AL.

58
10 percent or more of its population in each of the four race/ethnicity groups—Asian, Black,
Hispanic, and White.

Education, Employment, and Income

Educational attainment, as measured by the percentage of persons age 25 or older in 2019 who
completed requirements for a college degree or higher was highest in DeKalb (44%), Cobb (47%),
Fulton (53%), and Fort Bend (46%) counties and lowest in Clayton (19%) and Polk (20%) counties.
Unemployment in 2019 was highest in Clayton (7.6%) and Jefferson (6.4%) counties and lowest in
Anne Arundel (4.2%) and Gwinnett (4.8%) counties. Median household and family incomes was
highest in Anne Arundel and Fort Bend counties and lowest in Clayton and Polk counties. Among
the 11 counties, DeKalb had the seventh highest median family income ($77,215) and the seventh
highest median household income ($62,399) in 2019. Regarding income change (in real terms,
adjusted for inflation) between 1999 and 2019, median household income in DeKalb County declined
by 17.5 percent and median family income declined by 7.2 percent; measures of income change
ranked seventh and ninth respectively for median family income and median household income.
DeKalb County’ poverty rate (15.1%) in 2019 was the fourth highest among the 11 counties analyzed.

Housing
The total number of housing units in DeKalb County increased 19 percent between 2000 and 2019,
which was the smallest increase among the metro Atlanta core counties and exceeded the growth
rate in only two of the six comparison counties (Jefferson and Prince George’s). Regarding housing
tenure, only Clayton (49.5%) had a lower home ownership rate than DeKalb’s (54.6%); in the other
counties home ownership ranged from 62.1 percent in Prince George’s to 77.2 percent in Fort Bend.
DeKalb’s housing vacancy rate in 2019 (9.4%) ranked in the middle of the distribution among the 11
counties; Gwinnett had the lowest vacancy rate (5.1%) and Polk (20.4%) had the highest vacancy
rate.
The median value of owner-occupied homes in DeKalb County was $215,600 in 2019, which was
seventh highest among the 11 counties; Clayton County had the lowest median home value
($108,500) and Anne Arundel County ($361,200) had the highest. DeKalb (7.8%) reported the third
lowest increase in median home values (in inflation-adjusted dollars) between 2000 and 2019;
growth in home values was much higher in the six comparison counties, led by Anne Arundel (53%)
and Fort Bend (56%) counties.
Median rent in 2019 in DeKalb County ($1,169) was the seventh highest; Jefferson County ($900)
had the lowest median rent and Anne Arundel ($1,663) had the highest. Overall, changes in median
rents between 2000 and 2019 in constant dollars was much lower in the Atlanta metro counties than
the comparison counties. Median rents in Clayton County declined by 4.2 percent between 2000 and
2019 whereas rent increases in the other metro Atlanta core counties ranged from 0.8 percent in
Cobb County to 14.8 percent in Fulton County; DeKalb’s increase was three percent. Rent changes in
the comparison counties ranged from 18 percent in Volusia County to 41 percent in Anne Arundel
County. Metro Atlanta counties not only had lower housing values and rents than the comparison
counties but also experienced a lower rate of change in housing values and rents between 2000 and
2019.
In terms of the age of the housing stock, DeKalb County (49%) had the highest share of older housing
among the five metro Atlanta counties, defined here as housing units built before 1980; among the
six comparison counties Jefferson County (61%) and Prince George’s (57%) had the highest rates of
older housing and Fort Bend (15%) the lowest.

59
Table 10. Selected Characteristics of DeKalb County and Comparison Counties.
Metro Atlanta Counties Comparison Counties
Anne Prince Fort
DeKalb Clayton Cobb Fulton Gwinnett Jefferson Polk Volusia
Arundel George's Bend
Nearest major city Atlanta Atlanta Atlanta Atlanta Atlanta Birmingham Tampa Orlando Baltimore Washington Houston
Land area (sq. miles) 498
Percent of population in 55.9 79.9 74.3 0.1 75.1 16.6 61.4 20.8 93.0 73.3 59.2
Number of municipalities in county 13 7 7 15 16 39 17 17 2 27 20
Total Population, 2020 764,382 297,595 766,149 1,066,710 957,062 674,721 725,046 553,543 588,261 967,201 822,779
Percent change, 2000-2020 14.8 25.8 26.1 30.7 62.6 1.9 49.8 24.9 20.1 20.7 132.1
Percent non-Hispanic White 28.2 8.7 48.2 37.9 32.5 48.1 54.2 68.6 62.5 11.3 29.6
Percent non-Hispanic Black 50.3 69.0 26.1 42.1 26.9 41.5 13.9 10.0 17.4 59.1 20.4
Percent non-Hispanic Asian 6.6 4.5 5.6 7.6 13.2 1.9 1.8 1.9 4.3 4.3 22.1
Percent Hispanic or Latino 10.7 14.3 14.5 8.1 23.0 5.2 25.9 14.9 9.7 21.2 24.1
Education, Employment, and
Percent BA or higher, 2019 44.2 19.5 47.4 52.9 36.9 33.4 20.2 23.7 41.7 33.1 46.2
Percent unemployed, 2019 6.4 7.6 4.4 5.5 4.2 6.5 5.9 4.9 4.2 6.0 5.1
Median Household Income, 2019 62,399 47,864 77,932 69,673 71,026 53,901 50,584 49,494 100,798 84,920 97,743
Percent change, 1999-2019* -17.5 -27.2 -13.2 -4.4 -23.8 -5.1 -8.9 -8.7 6.0 -0.2 -0.6
Median Family Income , 2019 77,215 53,319 95,474 95,559 79,584 70,664 58,508 62,616 115,941 98,084 108,211
Percent change, 1999-2019* -7.2 -26.0 -8.4 6.7 -22.5 -0.1 -8.3 -2.7 9.1 2.0 0.7
Percent of persons below poverty, 15.1% 18.6% 9.1% 14.4% 10.7% 16.0% 15.8% 14.3% 5.8% 8.4% 7.4%
Housing
Total housing units, 2019 311,880 105,593 300,047 471,836 309,166 307,874 295,456 260,720 224,378 333,041 251,641
Percent change, 2000-2019 19.4 22.1 26.3 35.3 47.4 6.8 30.5 23.0 20.0 10.1 116.9
Owner Occupied, 2019 54.6 49.5 64.5 51.6 66.3 62.7 68.9 70.3 74.2 62.1 77.2
Renter Occupied, 2019 45.4 50.5 35.5 48.4 33.7 37.3 31.1 29.7 25.8 37.9 22.8
Vacant, 2019 9.4 10.7 6.6 13.0 5.1 15.2 20.4 17.0 6.5 6.5 5.5
Median Value Owner-Occupied 215,600 108,500 253,900 313,300 217,900 159,100 150,800 175,000 361,200 302,800 265,900
Percent change, 2000-2019* 7.8 -20.9 16.2 17.1 3.6 18.5 22.3 35.4 53.2 40.5 56.1
Median Gross Rent, 2019 1,169 991 1,202 1,205 1,272 900 978 1,046 1,663 1,475 1,431
Percent change, 2000-2019* 3.0 -4.2 0.8 14.8 4.3 21.6 31.9 18.4 40.8 35.2 32.5
% of housing units built before 1980 48.6 39.0 30.6 38.6 15.6 61.1 34.5 38.6 47.1 56.7 15.2
% vacant housing units before 1980 54.4 45.9 43.8 48.1 15.2 70.7 33.4 45.4 60.4 63.6 23.1
% of renter units built before 1980 43.3 43.3 34.2 37.8 17.8 59.3 39.3 43.1 42.6 60.7 20.5

Sources: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000 and 2020 Decennial Censuses of Population and Housing; American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, 2015-2019.
* Percentage change based on inflation-adjusted dollars, 2019=1.00.

60
Characteristics of the Housing Stock
Recent trends in the characteristics of the housing stock in DeKalb County are generally consistent
with national trends. The total number of housing units increased 19 percent over the past 19 years,
rising from 261,231 in 2000 to 311,880 in 2019 (Table 10). While the number of owner-occupied and
renter-occupied housing units both increased during this period, the increases were much larger for
renter households (24.5%) than owner households (1.3%). As a result, the proportion of renter-
occupied housing units increased from 41.5 percent in 2000 to 45.4 percent in 2019 while owner-
occupied housing units declined from 58.5 percent to 54.6 percent. Figure 22 illustrates the spatial
distribution of owner- and renter-occupied housing in DeKalb County based on the American
Community Survey’s five-year estimates for 2015-2019. Renter housing tends to be most
concentrated in northern DeKalb (north of I-85), the Clarkston-Stone Mountain area, and parts of
Stonecrest. Homeownership is highest in the northern sections of Dunwoody, Southwest DeKalb
(south of I-20 and west of Stonecrest) and the central-east portions of the county (south of Stone
Mountain and north of Stonecrest).
DeKalb County’s (9.4%) housing vacancy rate in 2019 was the third lowest among the five metro
Atlanta core counties, trailing Gwinnett (5.1%) and Cobb (6.6%). Among the comparison counties,
Anne Arundel, Prince George’s and Fort Bend counties all had vacancy rates under seven percent
whereas vacancy rates topped 15 percent in Jefferson, Polk, and Volusia counties.
Figure 23 shows the distribution of vacant housing in DeKalb County based on the American
Community Survey’s five-year estimates for 2015-2019. The map on the left panel shows the largest
number of vacant housing units are found in Southwest DeKalb and Dunwoody, with census tracts
in those areas containing more than 800 units of vacant housing based on the ACS five-year
estimates for 2015-2019. There is also a census tract in the Stonecrest area with nearly 700 vacant
housing units.
In terms of the concentration of vacant housing, the map on the right panel of Figure 23 shows
several census tracts with vacancy rates of 10 percent or higher. These include the previously
mentioned tracts in Southwest DeKalb and Dunwoody as well as a couple of tracts in the Edgewood
neighborhood in the city of Atlanta. The highest vacancy rate, 19 percent, was recorded in a tract in
the Tucker-Stone Mountain.
Almost one out of three rental housing units (30%) in 2019 were single-family homes, which
represented most of the net increase in rental housing units between 2010 and 2019 (Figure 24).
Small multi-family apartment buildings (two to four units) represented less than 10 percent of the
rental housing stock in 2019 (down from 12 percent in 2010), due to a net loss of 1,000 rental units
between 2010 and 2019. The largest segment of the DeKalb County rental stock in 2019 consisted of
apartments in buildings with 5-19 units (35%), though 3,424 rental units were lost in this category
between 2010 and 2019 and consequently its share of rental units declined from 44 percent in 2010.
Over the last twenty years the county’s rental housing stock has been substantially transformed. In
2000, the county’s rental market was predominantly found in small apartment buildings (61%) with
19 percent single-family rentals and 19.7 percent in large apartment buildings. By 2019 less than
half of the county’s rental units were in small apartment buildings (44%) whereas single family
rentals had increased their share to 30 percent and large apartment buildings now account for one
out of every four rental units.

61
Figure 22. Owner- and Renter-Occupied Housing, DeKalb County, 2019

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey, 2015-2019 Five-Year Estimates

62
Figure 23. Vacant Housing in DeKalb County, 2019

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey, 2015-2019 Five-Year Estimates

63
Table 11. Distribution of DeKalb County Rental Housing by Year Built and Number of Units in Structure,
2010-2019
Since 1980 Before 1980 Total
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
ACS, 2015-2019
One 18,306 25.2 20,394 36.8 38,700 30.2
2-4 4,420 6.1 7,282 13.1 11,702 9.1
5 - 19 23,999 33.0 21,004 37.9 45,003 35.1
20 - 49 11,377 15.7 3,271 5.9 14,648 11.4
50 or more 14,145 19.5 3,265 5.9 17,410 13.6
Mobile home 417 0.6 234 0.4 651 0.5
Total 72,664 100.0 55,450 100.0 128,114 100.0

ACS 2006-2010
One 11,521 19.6 15,131 29.7 26,652 24.3
2-4 4,724 8.0 7,977 15.7 12,701 11.6
5 - 19 26,686 45.3 21,741 42.7 48,427 44.1
20 - 49 7,505 12.7 2,995 5.9 10,500 9.6
50 or more 8,115 13.8 2,758 5.4 10,873 9.9
Mobile home 319 0.5 260 0.5 579 0.5
Total

Change, 2010-2019
One 6,785 58.9 5,263 34.8 12,048 45.2
2-4 -304 -6.4 -695 -8.7 -999 -7.9
5 - 19 -2,687 -10.1 -737 -3.4 -3,424 -7.1
20 - 49 3,872 51.6 276 9.2 4,148 39.5
50 or more 6,030 74.3 507 18.4 6,537 60.1
Mobile home 98 30.7 -26 -10.0 72 12.4
Total 13,794 23.4 4,588 9.0 18,382 16.8
Sources: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Housing, 2000, and American Community Survey, Five-Year
Estimates, 2015-2019.

Most of the small apartment buildings (two to twenty units) that were removed from DeKalb’s
housing stock between 2010 and 2019 were in buildings built since 1980 (Table 11). About 3,000
small apartments built since 1980 were lost from the rental stock over the last decade and an
additional 1,400 units built before 1980 were also lost. Thus, by 2019, the remaining rental units in
small apartment buildings were about evenly split between those built before 1980 and those built
since, which suggests that the pre-1980 units may be particularly vulnerable to future loss given
their age. While it is likely that many of these remaining older units are in poor physical condition
and some may need to be demolished for health and safety reasons, it is also conceivable that these
older small apartment buildings are part of DeKalb’s affordable, available, and adequate inventory
and at risk of conversion into higher income rentals through demolition and reconstruction or
substantial rehabilitation.

64
Figure 24. DeKalb County Net Change in Rental Units by Number of Units in Structure, 2010-2019

20,000

Net Change in Rental Units, 2010-2019

15,000

10,000

5,000

0
One 2-4 5 - 19 20 - 49 50 or more Mobile home Total

-5,000

Mobile home
651
1%

50 or more
17,410
14%
One
38,700
20 - 49 30%
14,648
11%

2-4
11,702
9%
5 - 19
45,003
35%
RENTAL UNITS , 2019

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Housing and American Community Survey, 2015-2019 Five
Year Estimates.

65
Housing Needs and Challenges
According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s 2021 Worst Case Housing
Needs report to Congress, there were 7.8 million renter households with worst case needs in 2019, a
statistically insignificant increase from 2017, but a decline from the record high recorded in 2011.
Despite signs of improvement, households with worst case needs remain at higher levels than those
observed prior to the 2007-2009 recession. HUD defines “worst case needs” as renter households with
very low income (less than 50 percent of the Area Median Income, AMI) who do not receive
government assistance and pay more than half of their income for housing, live in a housing unit
whose condition is considered to be severely inadequate, or both.
The report found “that despite favorable economic conditions in the 2017-2019 period, worst case
housing needs persisted across demographic groups, household types, and regions throughout the
United States. The unmet need for decent, safe, and affordable rental housing has continued to
outpace income growth and the ability of federal, state, and local governments to supply housing
assistance and facilitate affordable housing production.” 77 HUD added that “the report captures
housing need in the period immediately before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and associated
economic recession in early 2020... worst case housing needs have [the] potential to increase
substantially before HUD’s next report. A comprehensive approach to housing policy is sorely needed
to address the long-standing and evolving challenge of worst case housing needs.” 78
The HUD report noted that the primary problem for worst case needs renters was housing cost
burden; 97.5 percent of all worst case housing needs renters had severe rent burdens in 2019, paying
more than half of their income for gross rent; inadequate housing conditions accounted for less than
three percent of worst case needs. Overall, 42 percent of very low-income renter households had
worst case needs in 2019; almost half of extremely low-income renters (less than 30% AMI) had
worst case needs (49%) as compared to 30 percent of renter households with incomes between 30 and
50 percent of AMI. 79
In terms of race and ethnicity, prevalence of worst case needs was highest for Hispanic very low-
income renters (45%), followed by non-Hispanic Whites (44%), and non-Hispanic Blacks (36%). The
report noted that the lower rate of worst case needs among Black households is likely due to their
greater likelihood of receiving housing assistance. 80 Prevalence of worst case needs among Hispanic
and non-Hispanic White renters, however, declined slightly between 2017 and 2019, whereas the
rate among Black very low-income renter households increased slightly.
The proportion of households with worst case needs varied by family type. The largest group of very
low-income renters with worst case housing needs, families with children, was the only family type
that saw a decrease in the prevalence of housing needs between 2017 and 2019, declining by 1.3
percentage points to 40.2, which was slightly below the overall rate for very low-income renters.
Higher than average rates for worst case needs in 2019 were recorded for other non-family
households (single adults, unmarried couples, roommates, 43.7%) and family households without
children (45.9%). 81

77 Worst Case Housing Needs, 2021, p. vii.

78 Ibid., p. xi.
79 Ibid., p. 4.
80 Ibid, p. 5
81 Ibid., pp. 7-9.

66
HUD concluded that “during the 10-year economic recovery, 2009-2019, worst case needs continued
to persist at high levels. Renter income gains in recent years have been offset by rent increases
because of limited production of affordable rental units. Even with public rental assistance, 6 of 10
ELI renter households and 4 of 10 VLI renter households do not have access to affordable and
available housing units.” 82
Housing Problems in DeKalb County. Figure 25
reports the percentage of households with housing
problems in 2019 by housing tenure for DeKalb
County and the other ten counties included in our In DeKalb, nearly half of all
analysis. The patterns are consistent with the trends
noted in HUD’s Worst Case Housing Needs report. renter-occupied households
Overall, the prevalence of households with
affordability problems is far greater than those with
are cost-burdened whereas
problems with the physical condition of their housing only about one-fourth of
unit. Renter households are also far more likely to
report a housing problem (of either type) than are owner-occupied households
owner-occupied households. In DeKalb, nearly half are cost-burdened. DeKalb
(45%) of all renter-occupied households are cost-
burdened whereas only about one-fourth (23%) of County has the third-highest
owner-occupied households are cost-burdened.
DeKalb County has the third-highest prevalence of
prevalence of cost-burdened
cost-burdened owner households (trailing only Prince owner households and fourth
George’s and Volusia counties) and fourth highest
prevalence of cost-burdened renter households highest prevalence of cost-
(trailing Volusia, Clayton, and Gwinnett counties) burdened renter households
among the 11 counties included in the analysis.
among the 11 counties
Cost-Burdened Renter Households
included in the analysis.
Figure 26 presents the 2015-2019 five-year estimates
of the percentage of cost-burdened and severely cost-
burdened households in DeKalb County. Overall, one
out of three (35%) DeKalb households had a housing affordability problem with about one out of five
(19%) reporting a cost burden and 16 percent a severe housing cost burden. Elderly households (36%)
were slightly more likely to report being housing cost burdened than were non-elderly households
(34%). Hispanic (47%), Black (41%), and Asian (31%) householders were more likely to report a
housing affordability problem than were non-Hispanic Whites (23%).
The data clearly show that the prevalence of housing affordability problems is highest among lower
income households. Overall, the ACS five-year estimates for 2015-2019 show that about eight out of
ten extremely low income (0-30% AMI) and very low-income (30-50% AMI) households in DeKalb
County were housing cost burdened. Nearly 70 percent of extremely low-income households were
severely cost burdened. More than half of low-income households (50-80% AMI) were housing cost
burdened in 2019.

82 Ibid., p.32.

67
Figure 25. Housing Problems by Tenure, 2019

Owner-Occupied Housing Problems

100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
DeKalb Clayton Cobb Fulton Gwinnett Jefferson Polk Volusia Anne Prince Fort Bend
County County County County County County County County Arundel George's County
County County

Physical Cost Burden None

Renter-Occupied Housing Problems

100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
DeKalb Clayton Cobb Fulton Gwinnett Jefferson Polk Volusia Anne Prince Fort Bend
County County County County County County County County Arundel George's County
County County

Physical Cost Burden None

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Comprehensive Housing Affordability
Strategy Data, 2014-2018 Five-Year Estimates, released September 29, 2021.

68
Figure 26. DeKalb County Cost Burdened and Severely Cost Burdened Households by Type, 2019
Percent of Households

Nonelderly
Elderly

GT 100% AMI
80-100% AMI
50-80% AMI
30-50% AMI
LT 30% AMI

Non-Hispanic White
Hispanic, All Races
Non-Hispanic Black
Non-Hispanic Asian

Total
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Total Severely Cost Burdened Cost Burdened

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Comprehensive Housing Affordability
Strategy Data/U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey, Five-Year Estimates, 2015-2019

Figures 27-31 display the geographic distribution of cost-burdened and severely cost-burdened
households in DeKalb County based on the 2015-2019 five-year estimates. The maps show that for
the lowest income households (0-30%, 30-50% AMI), the greatest prevalence of housing affordability
problems (80% or higher) is substantial across all areas of the county. Though the prevalence of
housing affordability problems declines somewhat for low income households (50-80% of AMI), there
are still substantial areas of the county where more than half of DeKalb County households are cost
burdened or severely cost-burdened (Figure 29). Moderate income households (80-100% of AMI) with
housing affordability problems can also be found in most areas of the county with several census
tracts in the western areas of the county showing 80 percent or more of moderate-income renter
households with cost or severe cost burdens (Figure 30). The share of renter households with cost or
severe cost burdens drops sharply for those with income greater than the areawide median (Figure
31), with the highest prevalence of households with housing affordability problems among this
income group residing in the Dunwoody area. The share of elderly renter households with housing
affordability problems can be found throughout the county, with several census tracts containing 80
percent or higher of elderly renter households with housing cost burdens (Figure 32).

69
Figure 27. Cost Burdened Renters: 30% AMI Figure 28. Cost Burdened Renters: 50% AMI

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy Data, 2014-2018 Five-Year Estimates,
released September 29, 2021.

70
Figure 29. Cost Burdened Renters: 80% AMI Figure 30. Cost Burdened Renters: 100% AMI

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy Data, 2014-2018 Five-Year Estimates,
released September 29, 2021.

71
Figure 31. Cost Burdened Renters: Greater than 100% AMI Figure 32. Cost Burdened Renters: Elderly

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy Data, 2014-2018 Five-Year Estimates,
released September 29, 2021.

72
Housing Cost Burdens and the Pandemic
The previous section, based on data covering the period prior to the coronavirus pandemic, show an
increasing incidence of housing cost burden among low-, moderate-, and middle-income households.
As both popular news stories and more academically oriented policy studies have noted, the economic
and health effects generated by the pandemic have imposed considerable hardship, sharply
increasing the number of low-income renters at risk of eviction and homelessness according to a
recent analysis by the Urban Institute. 83
To help local leaders better focus on the areas of greatest need, researchers at the Urban Institute
created an Emergency Rental Assistance Priority Index to identify census tracts with the greatest
prevalence of low-income renters at risk of housing instability and homelessness based on a variety
of demographic characteristics and neighborhood conditions. The overall index is based on three
subindexes and uses the most recent data available from the American Community Survey (2015-
2019 five-year estimates), March 2021 update of the Urban Institute’s job-loss data tool, and HUD’s
2013-2017 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy estimates.
The three indexes and their indicators are as follows:
• Housing Instability Risk Subindex
o Share of people living in poverty (ACS)
o Share of renter-occupied housing units (ACS)
o Share of severely cost-burdened low-income renters (income less than $35,000; ACS)
o Share of severely overcrowded households (more than 1.5 persons per room, ACS)
o Share of unemployed people (ACS)

• COVID-19 Impact Subindex

o Share of adults without health insurance (ACS)
o Share of low-income jobs lost to COVID-19 (Urban’s job loss database)
• Equity Subindex
o Share of people of color (ACS)
o Share of extremely low-income renter households (CHAS)
o Share of households receiving public assistance including programs such as Temporary
Assistance to Needy Families and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (ACS)

All the indicators were converted to standardized scores, using statewide averages and standard
deviations for the calculation of standard scores, and then combined into the subindexes. For the
Emergency Rental Assistance Priority Index, the three subindexes were combined into a weighted
total index with the Housing Instability Risk subindex weighted at 50 percent, the Equity subindex
at 40 percent, and the COVID-19 Impact subindex at 10 percent. Total index scores in Georgia
ranged from -1.429 to 2.069 with larger values indicating greater need.
In DeKalb County, the total index scores ranged from -1.381 (unincorporated DeKalb south of East
Lake) to 1.521 (Chamblee). As shown in Figure 33, the census tracts with the greatest needs as
summarized by the Urban Institute’s Emergency Rental Assistance Priority Index are generally
clustered in three areas: the Buford Highway Corridor (tracts just north of I-85 including portions of
the cities of Brookhaven, Chamblee, and Doraville), central DeKalb County (parts areas in or near
the cities of Clarkston, Stone Mountain, and Tucker as well as areas just east of Avondale Estates,
Belvedere Park, and Redan in unincorporated DeKalb, and tracts just north and south of I-20
(Gresham Park, Candler-McAfee, Panthersville, Redan, and Stonecrest).

“Where to Prioritize Emergency Rental Assistance to Keep Renters in Their Homes,” Washington, DC: The
83

Urban Institute, Updated May 14, 2021.

73
Figure 33. Emergency Rental Assistance Priority Index
DeKalb County census tracts

Source: Analysis of The Urban Institute, Rental Assistance Priority Index, accessed February 28, 2022.

74
Availability of Affordable Housing
Comparative data on the supply of affordable housing is presented in Figure 34 for DeKalb County
and the ten comparison counties. The figure shows the percentage of rental units that are affordable
(30% of household income or less for housing) to households in various income groups based on
decennial census (2000) and American Community Survey data (five-year estimates, 2010, 2019).
For low-income households (80% of the
AMI), Figure 34 shows the share of
affordable units has steadily declined in
DeKalb and most of the other comparison
The proportion of affordable
counties between 2000 and 2019. 84 rental units for low income
In DeKalb, the proportion of affordable households in DeKalb County
rental units for low-income households
(80% AMI) declined from 93 percent in declined from 93 percent in 2000
2000 to 80 percent in 2019. The middle
panel of Figure 34 shows that the
to 80 percent in 2019. Over this
proportion of affordable rental units for same period, the share of rental
very low-income households (50% AMI) is
substantially smaller and for most housing units affordable for very
counties, including DeKalb, has low-income households declined
consistently declined between 2000 and
2019. In DeKalb the share of rental from 54 percent to 30 percent and
housing units affordable for very low-
income households declined from 54
the share of rental units
percent in 2000 to 30 percent in 2019. affordable for extremely low-
The bottom panel of Figure 34 shows that income households declined from
the proportion of rental housing units
affordable to extremely low-income eight percent to six percent.
households (30% AMI) has consistently
been below 20 percent for all but two
counties (Fulton and Jefferson) between 2000 and 2019. In DeKalb County the share of rental units
for extremely low-income households declined from eight percent in 2000 to six percent in 2019.
Figures 35-37 show the spatial distribution of affordable rental units in DeKalb County in 2019 for
low-, very low-, and extremely low- income households. More than one out of three census tracts in
DeKalb County have no rental units that are affordable for extremely low-income households (less
than 30% AMI) (Figure 35). There are only four census tracts in DeKalb County where more than 25
percent of rental housing units were affordable to extremely low-income households: all of these
tracts (yellow shading on the map) are located inside I-285 and south of I-85.
Figure 36 shows that about one out of six (16%) census tracts in DeKalb County have a majority of
rental units that are affordable for very low-income households (50% AMI). Most of these census
tracts are in central DeKalb County. In more than half of the census tracts in the county

84 This trend is consistent with findings reported in a recent study of affordable housing in eight large

southeastern cities which found these cities, including Atlanta, “face chronic shortages of affordable housing,”
“are seeing substantial declines in the number of low-cost rented housing units,” and “increases in higher levels
of rent-burdened households.” Dan Immergluck, Ann Carpenter, and Abram Lueders, “Declines in Low-Cost
Rented Housing Units in Eight Large Southeastern Cities,” Atlanta: Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta,
Community and Economic Development Department, May 2016.

75
Figure 34. Percentage of Rental Units Affordable by Income Category, 2000-2019

Low Income
100.0
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
DeKalb Clayton Cobb Fulton Gwinnett Jefferson Polk Volusia Anne Prince Fort
County County County County County County County County Arundel George's Bend
County County County

2000 2010 2019

Very Low Income

100.0
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
DeKalb Clayton Cobb Fulton Gwinnett Jefferson Polk Volusia Anne Prince Fort
County County County County County County County County Arundel George's Bend
County County County

2000 2010 2019

Extremely Low Income

100.0
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
DeKalb Clayton Cobb Fulton Gwinnett Jefferson Polk Volusia Anne Prince Fort Bend
County County County County County County County County Arundel George's County
County County

2000 2010 2019

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Decennial Census of Population and American Community Survey, Five-
Year estimates, various years.

76
(51%) less than 25 percent of the rental units are affordable to very low-income renter households;
six of these tracts have no affordable units for very low income renter households.
As we move up the income scale, a larger proportion of rental units become available. Figure 37
shows that nine out of ten census tracts have a majority of rental units that are affordable to low-
income households (80% AMI); in six out of ten census tracts,75 percent or more of their rental units
are affordable to low-income households. Only six census tracts have less than 25 percent of their
rental units affordable for low-income households, including three tracts with no affordable rental
units. Four of these census tracts are in the City of Dunwoody, one is in Tucker, and the other is in
north central DeKalb just south of I-85 inside I-285.
Figures 38-40 highlight the areas in DeKalb County that have been most affected by rent increases
between 2019 and 2021. In 2019, 11 of the 28 county zip codes for which data were available had an
average rent of $1,100 or less in December 2019 based on a 12-month rolling weighted average
across apartment developments tracked by ApartmentData.com (Figure 38). By December 2021,
rents in only three of those zip codes remained at or below $1,100 and all were found in the Avondale
Estates, Scottdale, and Clarkston areas (Figure 39). More than half of the zip codes with available
data had an average rent of $1,500 or higher in 2021 and the number of such zip codes increased
from 5 in 2019 to 15 in 2021. All of these zip codes were in the northern sections of the county with
the highest average rent reported in zip code 30306, located in the Emory University/Druid Hills
area.
Overall, the average rent in DeKalb County rose 23 percent between 2019 and 2021 based on
ApartmentData.com data. The largest percentage increases during this period occurred in the
central areas of DeKalb County, generally encompassing the area north of I-20 and outside I-285 as
well as the Belvedere Park and Candler-McAfee areas inside I-285, which are the areas that had the
lowest average rents in 2019 (compare Figures 40 and 38). The percentage change in rents in these
four zip codes ranged from 29.5 percent in Lithonia to 35.8 percent in the Redan-Stone Mountain
area. Rents increased less than ten percent in three zip codes: 30307 (Emory University-Druid Hills
area), 30317 (city of Atlanta in DeKalb neighborhoods), and 30079 (Scottdale).

77
Figure 35. Percent of Rental Units Affordable: 30% AMI Figure 36. Percent of Rental Units Affordable: 50% AMI

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey, 2015-2019 Five-Year Estimate.

78
Figure 37. Percent of Rental Units Affordable: 80% AMI

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey, 2015-2019 Five-Year Estimate.

79
Figure 38. Average Rent, DeKalb County Apartments, 2019 Figure 39. Average Rent, DeKalb County Apartments, 2021
DeKalb County Zip Codes DeKalb County Zip Codes

Source: ApartmentData.com

80
Figure 40. Percent Change in Average Rent, DeKalb County, 2019-2021
Dekalb County Zip Codes

Source: ApartmentData.com

Housing Affordability Gap

The analysis in the preceding section presents a best-case scenario on the availability of affordable
rental housing as it assumes that those units could have been perfectly allocated to low-income
households. HUD’s Worst Case Housing Needs report further refines the analysis of affordable
housing by introducing the concept of affordable, available, and adequate (AAA) housing. Units are

81
considered available if they are affordable at a given income level but not occupied by higher-income
households; adequacy adds an additional criterion that units are in good physical condition. 85
HUD’s analysis shows that “the scarcity of affordable units is greatest for the poorest renters, but
because of the rapid increase in renter households and greater competition, that scarcity is reaching
higher up the income scale.” As Figure 41 illustrates, the cumulative number of affordable units does
not equal the cumulative number of renters until household income exceeds 52 percent of the area
median income. Beyond this point there is enough affordable housing, with perfect allocation, to
provide every renter with an income greater than 52 percent AMI with an affordable housing unit.
As the second line in Figure 41 shows, which considers the supply of affordable and available units
(i.e., units not occupied by higher income households), only 40 percent of extremely low-income
renters (0-30% of AMI) and 62 percent of very low income (less than 50% AMI) renters can find an
affordable unit. The affordable, available, and physically adequate rental stock did not reach
equilibrium until renter income exceeded 124 percent of AMI (third line in Figure 41). HUD reports
a severe mismatch between the number of extremely low-income renters and the number of
affordable housing units available to them: For every 100 extremely low-income renters there were
only 70 affordable units, 40 units were affordable and available, and only about one out of three
units (36) were affordable, available, and adequate. 86
The Urban Institute recently reported on the housing affordability gap for extremely low-income
renters and found that “nationwide, the market provides only 21 adequate, affordable, and available
(AAA) units for every 100 renter households with income at or below 30 percent of the area median
income…Federal assistance adds another 24 AAA units.” 87 The report concluded that while the gap
between affordable rental housing and ELI renters grew in absolute terms between 2000 and 2014
by 2.1 million, the gap in rental housing per 100 ELI renters decreased; “in other words, the problem
continued to get worse, but at a slower rate. 88
The Urban Institute analysis produced estimates of the housing affordability gap for ELI renters at
the county level for three points in time based on the decennial census for 2000 and the five-year
American Community Survey estimates for 2005-09 and 2010-14. Among large counties with the
largest affordability gap for ELI renters, three of the 10 counties with the largest gaps were in

85 Units are considered to have severe physical inadequacies if they have any of the following four problems: (1)

lack piped hot water or a flush toilet or both a bathtub and shower; (2) broken-down heating equipment; (3) lack
electricity or have electrical problems that include exposed wiring, a room with no working wall outlet, and
three or more blown fuses or tripped circuit breakers in the past 90 days; and (4) have any five of the following
maintenance problems—leaks from outdoors, leaks from indoors, holes in the floor, holes or open cracks in the
walls or ceilings, more than one square feet of peeling paint or plaster, and rats in the past 90 days. See HUD,
Worst Case Housing Needs 2021 Report to Congress, pp. 87-88.
86 Ibid., pp. 20-21.
87 Liza Getsinger, Lily Posey, Graham MacDonald, Josh Leopold and Katya Abazajian, The Housing
Affordability Gap for Extremely Low-Income Renters in 2014, Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, April 2017,
p. 1.
88 The Urban Institute analysis relied on the American Community Survey, a different data source than the
biennial American Housing Survey used in HUD’s Worst Case Housing Needs, which accounts for slightly
different national estimates of the number of ELI households and housing available to those households. In
addition, the two analyses use different methods for accounting for households with housing assistance. The
HUD study counts every household receiving housing assistance as unaffordable, based on contract rent,
whereas the Urban Institute analysis uses HUD administrative data to include assisted households with
affordable gross rents in their count of AAA units. Based on the Urban Institute analysis, about 26 percent of
ELI households receiving HUD assistance pay more than 30 percent of their income on housing. See Getsinger
et al, pp. 6 and 21 for further discussion.

82
Figure 41. The Supply of the Affordable, Available, and Adequate Rental Housing Stock, 2015

Source: HUD-PD&R tabulations of American Housing Survey Data; HUD, Worst Case Housing Needs 2021
Report to Congress, p. 20.

metropolitan Atlanta: Gwinnett County had the largest gap in 2014 (only 14 affordable, available,
and adequate units per 100 ELI renters), Cobb County had the third largest gap (18 AAA units per
100 ELI renters), and DeKalb County had the ninth largest gap (24 AAA units per 100 ELI renters).
Figure 42 illustrates the housing affordability gap for ELI renters in DeKalb County and the ten
comparison counties for the period 2000 to 2015 based on estimates from the Urban Institute
analysis. The top panel of the figure reports the gap in the number of rental units. In DeKalb
County, the housing affordability gap nearly doubled between 2000 and 2014, increasing from 12,496
units in 2000 to 23,790 in 2014 (90.4%), which placed the county in the middle of the distribution of
the 11 counties included in the analysis. Clayton County had the largest increase in housing
affordability gap (227.1%) and Prince George’s County (20.4%) had the smallest increase.
The bottom panel of Figure 42 expresses the housing affordability gap in terms of the number of
affordable, available, and adequate units per 100 ELI renter households, where smaller numbers
indicate a larger housing affordability gap. Based on this measure, the availability of affordable,
available, and adequate housing for ELI renters in DeKalb County declined from 34 units per 100
ELI renters in 2000 to 24 units per 100 ELI renters in 2014 (Table 12). Figure 42 shows that with

83
the exception of Fulton County, the housing affordability gap is particularly acute for the core
counties in metro Atlanta as compared to the other six counties included in the analysis. In addition,
while the ratio of AAA units to ELI renters improved in five of the counties between 2009 and 2014,
none of the counties had a more
favorable ratio in 2014 than in 2000.
The Urban Institute report classifies
According to a recent study by the AAA units based on whether they were
Urban Institute, three of the 10 “naturally affordable” or received a
subsidy through HUD or U.S.
counties with the largest housing Department of Agriculture housing
assistance programs. 89 Figure 43
affordability gaps were in reports the proportion of affordable,
metropolitan Atlanta: Gwinnett available, and adequate rental units
for ELI renters that were provided by
County had the largest gap (only the housing market without subsidy
14 affordable, available, and between 2000 and 2014. In DeKalb
County, 10 of the 24 (41.7%) AAA
adequate units per 100 ELI units per 100 ELI renter households in
2014 were unsubsidized, a slight
renters), Cobb County had the increase from 2000 when 12 of 34 AAA
third largest gap (18 AAA units units per 100 ELI renter households
(35.3%) were market units. DeKalb
per 100 ELI renters), and DeKalb County’s share of naturally occurring
County had the ninth largest gap AAA units is smaller than that found
in the other metro Atlanta counties
(24 AAA units per 100 ELI (except for Fulton County) and in four
of the six comparison counties (Polk,
renters). Volusia, Prince George’s and Fort
Bend).

Housing Conditions
According to a recent report by the Joint Center for Housing Studies, the median age of occupied
rental units in 2015 was 42 years, five years older than the median age for owner-occupied housing
units. 90 The report noted the oldest rental units are those in buildings with two to four housing units
(median age of 51 years) and that older rental housing is more likely to have problems related to
housing condition. Based on HUD definitions of inadequate housing, 13 percent of rental housing
units built before 1940 had physical deficiencies compared to only 6 percent of rental units built in
1990 or later. Overall, while the prevalence of physical problems is low for rental housing (9%), they
are twice as great as those for owner-occupied housing units (4%). 91

89HUD programs included the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program, Section 8 project-based rental
assistance, Public Housing, and other HUD programs such as multifamily housing programs and the Moderate
Rehabilitation program. USDA programs included Section 515 rural rental housing loans and Section 521
rental assistance. See Getsinger et al, pp. 5-6.
90Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, America’s Rental Housing 2017 (Cambridge, MA:
2017), p. 15.
91 Ibid.

84
Figure 42. Gap in Affordable Housing Units, 2000-2014, DeKalb and Comparison Counties

Gap in Affordable Housing Units, 2000-2014

30000

25000

20000

15000

10000

5000

2000 2005-09 2010-14

Affordable Units for Every 100 Extremely Low Income Renter Households
70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
DeKalb, Clayton, Cobb, GA Fulton , Gwinnett, Jefferson, Polk, FL Volusia, Anne Prince Fort Bend,
GA GA GA GA AL FL Arundel, George's , TX
MD MD

2000 2005-09 2010-14

Source: The Urban Institute, Mapping America’s Rental Housing Crisis.

85
Table 12. Extremely Low-Income Renter Households and Adequate, Affordable, Available Rental Units by County, 2000-2014.

ELI Renter Households Adequate, Affordable, Available Units AAA Units per 100 Renter Households
County 2000 2010-14 % Change 2000 2010-14 % Change 2000 2010-14 Difference
DeKalb, GA 19,051 31,310 64.3 6,555 7,520 14.7 34 24 -10
Clayton, GA 5,470 13,254 142.3 2,437 3,334 36.8 45 25 -19
Cobb, GA 10,728 18,746 74.7 2,907 3,408 17.2 27 18 -9
Fulton , GA 43,626 48,336 10.8 26,152 22,362 -14.5 60 46 -14
Gwinnett, GA 6,684 17,649 164.0 1,420 2,476 74.4 21 14 -7
Jefferson, AL 25,237 31,232 23.8 15,023 16,855 12.2 60 54 -6
Polk, FL 10,040 18,090 80.2 5,375 7,266 35.2 54 40 -13
Volusia, FL 8,529 15,534 82.1 3,163 5,327 68.4 37 34 -3
Anne Arundel, MD 5,849 7,385 26.3 2,926 3,228 10.3 50 44 -6
Prince George's , MD 22,879 27,390 19.7 7,918 9,370 18.3 35 34 0
Fort Bend, TX 3,436 6,520 89.8 1,572 2,497 58.8 46 38 -7
Source: Urban Institute, Mapping America’s Rental Housing Crisis, Data updated April 27, 2017.

86
Figure 43. Percent of Affordable Units without Subsidy, 2000-2014
80.0

70.0

60.0

50.0

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0

2000 2005-09 2010-14

Source: The Urban Institute, Mapping America’s Rental Housing Crisis.

As shown earlier in Figure 25 (page 68), the proportion of rental housing units with only a physical
problem was 5.2 percent in DeKalb County in 2019 and ranged from 3.7 percent (Volusia County) to
9.6 percent (Fort Bend County) among the 11 counties included in the analysis. DeKalb’s rate of
rental units with physical problems placed it just below the middle of the distribution, tied with
Anne Arundel County, with six counties having higher rates and three counties lower rates.
Figure 44 shows the spatial distribution of DeKalb County housing units with a severe physical
problem by census tract based on the 2015-2019 five-year ACS estimates. Darker shaded tracts have
a higher prevalence of physical problems with the housing stock and lighter shaded tracts have a
lower prevalence. The areas with the greatest concentration of owner-occupied housing units with
physical problems are scattered throughout the county. The census tracts with the highest
prevalence of owner-occupied housing units with physical problems are in Clarkston and Chamblee.
As noted earlier, physical problems are more likely to be found in rental housing and as shown by
the map in the right panel of Figure 44, the census tracts with the greatest concentrations of rental
housing with physical problems are generally found in the northern and central areas of the County,
including tracts in Chamblee, Doraville, Clarkston, and Decatur, as well as tracts north and west of
Tucker, north of Avondale Estates and east of Decatur, and in the Panthersville area.
We also use age of housing as a proxy for housing condition and focus on rental housing units built
before 1980. Older housing is more likely to have one or more problems related to major systems
such as plumbing, heating and/or electrical and more likely to have structural problems. In addition,
one of the biggest concerns with older housing is the presence of lead-based paint and the adverse

87
health effects that can come from prolonged exposure to lead, particularly among infants and young
children. According to the Centers for Disease Control, “the foremost cause of childhood lead
poisoning in the United States today is lead-based paint and the accompanying contaminated dust
and soil found in older houses.” 92 HUD’s Lead Safe Housing Rule, published in 1999, calls for the
notification, evaluation, and reduction of lead-based paint hazards in all federally-owned or
federally-assisted housing; properties built after 1978 are exempt from these rules. 93
Figures 45-50 map the geographic distribution of older rental housing in DeKalb County (units built
before 1980) by building size. Overall, the census tracts with the largest number of older rental units
tend to be found in North DeKalb (north of I-85, Brookhaven, Chamblee, Doraville areas) and in
Central DeKalb (areas outside Decatur and Avondale Estates, and in the Clarkston, Pine Lake, and
Stone Mountain areas).
This pattern shifts when we examine the distribution of older rental housing by the number of units
per structure. Older single-family rental units are largely concentrated in South DeKalb,
particularly the census tracts along the I-20 corridor (Figure 46). Census tracts with larger number
of older small and medium-sized rental properties (less than 50 units per structure) are found in
most areas inside I-285 as well as tracts in the Clarkston, Tucker, Stone Mountain and Stonecrest
areas (Figures 47-49). Older larger apartment complexes are most concentrated in census tracts in
Northeast Decatur, the Emory University area, and Dunwoody (Figure 51).

92U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Guidelines for the Evaluation and Control of Lead-
Based Paint Hazards in Housing, 2d ed (Washington, DC: Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control,
July 2012), p. 1-6.
93 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, “The Lead-Safe Housing Rule,” Office of Healthy

Homes and Lead Hazzard Control. Available at

https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/healthy_homes/enforcement/lshr.

88
Figure 44. Percent of Owner- and Renter-Occupied Housing Units with a Physical Problem

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy Data, 2014-2018 Five-Year Estimates,
released September 29, 2021.

89
Figure 45. Rental Units Built Before 1980 Figure 46. Rental Units Built Before 1980: 1 Unit Structure

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey, 2015-2019 Five-Year Estimates

90
Figure 47. Rental Units Built Before 1980: 2-4 Unit Structure Figure 48. Rental Units Built Before 1980: 5-19 Unit Structure

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey, 2015-2019 Five-Year Estimates

91
Figure 49. Rental Units Built Before 1980: 20-49 Unit Structure Figure 50. Rental Units Built Before 1980: 50+ Unit Structure

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey, 2015-2019 Five-Year Estimates

92
Section 4
Assisted Housing in Large Urban Counties

Overview
Assisted Housing. In DeKalb County, about one out of six rental units (22,203, 17.3%) had a
tenant or unit-based subsidy. Among the comparison counties the proportion of subsidized rental
units ranged from a low of 6.7 percent in Fort Bend County to a high of 27.4 percent in Fulton
County. More than eight out of ten rental units with a unit-based subsidy in DeKalb County were
assisted under the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program and about one out of four
assisted units with a unit-based subsidy received a HUD Section 8 or Project-Based Rental
Assistance subsidy. The proportion of rental units with a tenant-based subsidy (Section 8/Housing
Choice Vouchers) in DeKalb County was 5.9 percent; only Fulton County (9.3%) and Jefferson
County (7.9%) had higher rates of tenant-based subsidy.

Almost half (49.7%) of the county’s assisted housing with a unit-based subsidy is in the area south
of Interstate 85 and inside Interstate 285. The area south of I-85 and outside I-285 also has a
sizeable share of the county’s subsidized housing and together these two regions of the county
account for nine out of every ten rental units with a subsidy (90%), although the two areas only
account for about three-fourths (77%) of the county’s rental units.
Assisted Units at Risk of Loss. In DeKalb County, the rate of subsidized homes at risk is more
than twice the national rate, with one out of four publicly supported homes (24%) facing an
expiring subsidy within the next 10 years if their subsidies are not renewed; about two-thirds of
all subsidized units will be lost in the next 20 years unless their subsidies are renewed.
CDBG. DeKalb County allocated the smallest share of its Community Development Block Grant
funds for housing over the period 2014-2019 (less than 6% each year) among the 11 counties
included in the analysis, which was well below the national average for entitlement communities
which averaged about 28 percent during this period. The county’s largest CDBG-funded activity
category during this period was public facilities and improvements which accounted for about half of all
CDBG expenditures.
HOME. DeKalb County has the second largest cumulative award of funds under HUD’s housing
block grant program over the period 1992-2019 ($59.6 million) and was the only county in the
study that pursued a relatively balanced strategy for deploying its HOME funds with the largest
activity being rental housing development (35%) followed by homebuyer assistance (33%), owner-
occupied housing rehabilitation (27%), and tenant-based rental assistance (5%).
Neighborhood Stabilization Program. DeKalb County received the second-largest amount of
funding under HUD’s NSP program ($34 million) among the 11 counties in the analysis. DeKalb
again stands out among the study counties regarding its strategic use of NSP funds as it was the
only county that had NSP expenditures in all five activity categories: purchase and rehabilitation
(61%) and funding mechanisms (17%) were the two largest categories of expenditure.
Investor-Owned Housing. The sharp rise over the past few years in housing purchases by
investor owners has further exacerbated the gap in available, adequate, and affordable units. A
recent analysis by the Washington Post found that one out of every four homes sold in 2021 in
metro Atlanta and Charlotte were investor purchases, highest among the 40 metro areas included
in the analysis.

93
How does DeKalb County’s response to housing challenges compare with the policy responses taken
by other large urban counties, both in the greater Atlanta area as well as in the US? In this section
we present a comparative analysis that addresses the utilization of federally-subsidized affordable
housing programs (e.g., HUD Section 8 and project-based rental assistance, public housing, the Low
Income Housing Tax Credit program, and housing choice vouchers) as well as federal programs that
provide direct assistance to large urban county governments such as Community Development Block
Grants and the HOME Investment Partnership program.
We also examine some of the more widely-used affordable housing strategies and compare their
utilization in DeKalb County with the experiences of the other 10 urban counties included in our
analysis. These include strategies to increase the supply of affordable housing (e.g., housing trust
funds, inclusionary zoning ordinances, and Low Income Housing Tax Credits), to retain and preserve
affordable housing (e.g., rent control, code enforcement, grants and loans for housing rehabilitation,
land banks, the preservation of federally-subsidized housing, and tax relief), and to increase the
assets of low- and moderate-income families (e.g., Family Self Sufficiency, homeownership education
and counseling, homebuyer assistance, Section 8 homeownership programs, cooperative housing, and
community land trusts.

Assisted Housing in Large Urban Counties

The National Low Income Housing Coalition created the National Housing Preservation Database
(NHPD) in 2011 to provide property-based information on the subsidy status derived from nationally
available data sources. The database provides de-duplicated information on the inventory of
federally-assisted housing as reported by the following programs:
• HUD Project-Based Rental Assistance (Section 8 new Construction and Substantial
Rehabilitation, Rent Supplement Program, Rental Assistance Payments, Project
Rental Assistance Contract for Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly)
• Section 202 Direct Loans (low income seniors)
• Public Housing
• The Low Income Housing Tax Credit program
• The HOME Rental Assistance Program
• HUD Insurance Programs (Federal Housing Administration and other HUD
mortgage insurance and interest subsidies to promote the development of affordable
multifamily housing)
• State Housing Finance Agency Funded Section 236 (interest subsidies without the
FHA mortgage insurance)
• Section 515 Rural Rental Housing Loans
• Section 538 USDA Guaranteed Rural Rental Housing Program 94
Three tools are available in the database: (1) preservation profiles for the United States, states, and
counties; (2) a mapping tool; and (3) a query tool for generating reports and data extracts from the
database. We analyzed data for DeKalb County and the 11 comparison counties based on the
December 2021 NHPD update. We supplemented this data with data derived from HUD’s Housing

94 For descriptions of these programs see National Low Income Housing Coalition, National Housing

Preservation Database, Data Notes. Available at http://preservationdatabase.org/documentation/data-notes/.

94
Choice Vouchers by Tract database (last updated November 2021) 95 to gain a more complete picture
of subsidized housing that combines both unit-based and tenant-based assistance.
Table 13 reports the number of publicly-supported rental units in 2021 by program type for DeKalb
County and the 11 comparison counties. In DeKalb County, about one out of six rental units (22,203,
17.3%) had a tenant or unit-based subsidy. Among the comparison counties the proportion of
subsidized rental units ranged from a
low of 6.7 percent in Fort Bend County
to a high of 27.4 percent in Fulton
County. In DeKalb County, about one out of
More than eight out of ten rental units six rental units (22,203, 17.3%)
with a unit-based subsidy (83.8%) in
DeKalb County were assisted under the
had a tenant or unit-based
Low Income Housing Tax Credit subsidy. Among the comparison
(LIHTC) program and about one out of
four assisted units with a unit-based counties the proportion of
subsidy (25.6%) received a HUD Section subsidized rental units ranged
8 or Project-Based Rental Assistance
subsidy. The proportion of rental units from a low of 6.7 percent in Fort
with a tenant-based subsidy (Section
8/Housing Choice Vouchers) in DeKalb
Bend County to a high of 27.4
County was 5.9 percent; only Fulton percent in Fulton County.
County (9.3%) and Jefferson County
(7.9%) had higher rates of tenant-based
subsidy.

Assisted Units at Risk of Loss

Over the next 10 years more than 50,000 rental units in metro Atlanta will have their subsidies
expire according to a recent analysis of the National Housing Preservation Database by the Atlanta
Regional Commission. 96 While the vast majority of these units will likely have their subsidies
renewed, properties located in neighborhoods experiencing market revival may present more difficult
challenges for their retention as part of the affordable housing portfolio. Among the units affected
are more than 40,000 assisted with Low Income Housing Tax Credits, more than 5,400 under the
Section 8 project-based rental assistance program, more than 6,650 units with FHA assistance, and
over 1,000 units that received HOME assistance. 97
Nationally, according to the National Housing Preservation Database, about one in ten publicly
supported homes will face an expiring affordability restriction within the next 10 years based on the
NHPD’s December 2021 update. In DeKalb County, the rate of subsidized homes at risk is more than
twice the national rate, with one out of four publicly supported homes (24%) facing an expiring
subsidy within the next 10 years if their subsidies are not renewed. As shown in Figure 51, this is
the second highest percentage of units at risk of loss over the next 10 years among the 11 counties

95U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Housing Choice Vouchers by Tract, Created 7-15-2015,
last updated November 2021.
96 Atlanta Regional Commission, Regional Snapshot: Affordable Housing, July 2017, p. 19.
97 Data query of the Metro Atlanta Affordable Housing Tool covering the period 1/1/2018 through 12/31/2027.

See http://neighborhoodnexus.org/case-studies/enterprise.

95
Table 13. Publicly Supported Rental Units by Program, 2021.
Comparison Counties
Anne Prince Fort
Metro Atlanta Counties Jefferson, Arundel, George’s, Bend,
DeKalb Clayton Cobb Fulton Gwinnett AL Polk, FL Volusia, Fl MD MD TX

Tenant-based
Sec. 8/Housing Choice Vouchers 7,400 1,815 2,668 18,529 1,855 7,667 1,534 2,443 2,313 5,053 1,421
Unit-based
Section 8 2,588 659 741 7,306 726 4,020 1,419 1,227 1,340 2,920 315
Project-Based Vouchers 1,198 -- 313 5,458 -- 69 78 46 161 92 --
LIHTC 12,407 3,182 5,771 27,133 3,807 4,218 3,304 4,350 2,524 8,469 2,708
HOME 783 -- 113 1,884 42 766 7 63 123 511 16
PHA 254 30 -- 4,099 230 6,342 731 1,067 1,433 543 --
State program -- -- -- -- -- -- 3,304 3,187 -- -- --
Multiple subsidies 4,424 184 1,123 16,629 831 4,325 618 3,894 1,912 8,246 603
Total unit-based assisted units* 14,803 3,688 6,483 35,930 4,753 13,867 6,407 7,037 4,704 11,972 2,903
Total assisted units 22,203 5,503 9,151 54,459 6,608 21,534 7,941 9,480 7,017 17,025 4,324

Renter-occupied units, 2019 128,114 47,601 99,455 198,708 98,952 97,432 73,195 64,270 54,197 118,080 54,300
% tenant-based subsidy 5.8 3.8 2.7 9.3 1.9 7.9 2.1 3.8 4.3 4.3 2.6
% unit-based subsidy 11.6 7.7 6.5 18.1 4.8 14.2 8.8 10.9 8.7 10.1 5.3
% tenant or unit-based subsidy 17.3 11.6 9.2 27.4 6.7 22.1 10.8 14.8 12.9 14.4 8.0

% of assisted units with unit-based subsidy

Section 8 17.5 17.9 11.4 20.3 15.3 29.0 22.1 17.4 28.5 24.4 10.9
Project-based vouchers 8.1 -- 4.8 15.2 -- 0.5 1.2 0.7 3.4 0.8 --
LIHTC 83.8 86.3 89.0 75.5 80.1 30.4 51.6 61.8 53.7 70.7 93.3
HOME 5.3 -- 1.7 5.2 0.9 5.5 0.1 0.9 2.6 4.3 0.6
PHA 1.7 0.8 -- 11.4 4.8 45.7 11.4 15.2 30.5 4.5 --
State program -- -- -- -- -- -- 51.6 45.3 -- -- --

Sources: Public and Affordable Housing Research Corporation (PAHRC) and the National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC), National Housing Preservation Database, County Preservation
Profiles, 2021; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Housing Choice Vouchers by Tract, Last updated 11-5-2021; U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey, 2015-
2019 Five Year Estimates.
* Unduplicated count; some units may have more than one subsidy.

96
Figure 51. Housing Preservation Profile: 2021
Percentage of Subsidized Rental Units at Risk of Loss

DeKalb

Clayton

Cobb

Fulton

Gwinnett

Jefferson

Polk

Anne Arundel

Volusia

Prince Georges

Fort Bend

- 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0
Next 5 years Next 10 years Next 15 years Next 20 years Next 25 years

Source: Public and Affordable Housing Research Corporation (PAHRC) and the National Low Income
Housing Coalition (NLIHC), National Housing Preservation Database, County Preservation Profiles, 2021.

97
Table 14. DeKalb County Properties with Expiring Housing Subsidies Within the Next Ten Years

Units Subsidies
Property name Property address City Earliest end date Owner type at risk at risk
At risk of loss within the next five years
KIRKWOOD GARDENS 1929 Hosea L Williams Dr SE Atlanta 2/7/2022 For Profit 34 HOME

LYNWOOD PARK RENTAL PROGRAM 3224 Cates Ave NE Brookhaven 5/10/2022 -- 7 HOME
DELANO PLACE 1575 Line St Decatur 1/1/2023 For Profit 58 LIHTC
SUPPORTIVE HOUSE INC 2198 Dresden Dr Atlanta 2/6/2023 -- 56 HOME
HIGHLANDS @ EAST ATLANTA 2051 Flat Shoals Rd SE Atlanta 12/31/2023 Multiple 250 Section 8
OAKLAND COURT APARTMENTS 97 Sanderson St NE Atlanta 1/1/2024 Non-Profit 100 LIHTC
CANDLER CROSSING 3000 Ember Dr Decatur 1/1/2024 -- LIHTC
BELVEDERE POINTE 2825 Belvedere Ln Atlanta 1/1/2025 -- 24 LIHTC
COURTYARDS AT GLENVIEW 2035 Memorial Dr SE Atlanta 1/1/2025 Non-Profit 176 LIHTC
EAGLE'S NEST 3002 Ember Dr Decatur 1/1/2025 Non-Profit 296 LIHTC
GROVEWOOD PARK APARTMENTS 6170 Hillandale Dr Lithonia 1/1/2025 For Profit 119 LIHTC
ELDERLY HOUSING INITIATIVE 4947 Memorial Dr Stone Mountain 5/25/2025 HADC 11 HOME
ANTIOCH MANOR ESTATES I 4711 Bishop Ming Blvd Stone Mountain 12/23/2025 For Profit 10 HOME
COLUMNS AT EAST HILL 135 E Hill St Decatur 1/1/2026 -- 28 LIHTC
FORREST HEIGHTS APARTMENTS NSP3 1048 Columbia Dr Decatur 1/1/2026 For Profit 80 LIHTC
PRESLEY WOODS APARTMENTS 265 Kirkwood Rd NE Atlanta 1/1/2026 Non-Profit 40 LIHTC
SHANNON LAKE 1 Ravinia Dr Atlanta 1/1/2026 For Profit 287 LIHTC
BRYTON HILL APARTMENTS 2527 Skyland Dr Brookhaven 1/1/2026 For Profit -- LIHTC
THE SAFETY NET 2045 Graham Cir SE Atlanta 5/4/2026 -- 40 HOME
CASA RIO APARTMENTS 3754 Memorial Dr Decatur 12/21/2026 -- 71 HOME
Subtotal 1,687

98
Table 14, cont’d

Units Subsidies
Property name Property address City Earliest end date Owner type at risk at risk

At risk of loss within the next ten years

THORNBERRY APARTMENTS 2435 Aylesbury Loop Decatur 1/1/2027 -- 280 LIHTC
CHAMBLEE SENIOR RESIDENCES 3381 Malone Dr Chamblee 12/4/2027 For Profit 3 HOME
VILLAGES OF EASTLAKE II 460 E Lake Blvd SE Atlanta 1/1/2028 For Profit 271 LIHTC
ALLEGRE POINT SENIOR RESIDENCES 3391 Flat Shoals Rd Decatur 3/17/2028 Non-Profit 2 HOME
COLUMBIA SENIOR RESIDENCES AT EDGEWOOD 1281 Caroline St NE Atlanta 3/31/2028 For Profit 135 HOME/PBV
CHESTNUT CREEK APARTMENTS 3374 Aztec Rd Doraville 1/1/2028 For Profit -- LIHTC
MORNINGSIDE APARTMENTS 3469 Morningside Village Ln Doraville 1/1/2028 -- -- LIHTC
CANDLER FORREST 2145 Candler Rd Decatur 12/5/2028 For Profit 10 HOME
COLUMBIA VILLAGE TOWNHOMES 100 Jessica Ave Decatur 1/1/2029 For Profit 100 LIHTC
EAGLES RUN I 2000 Bouldercrest Rd SE Atlanta 1/1/2029 For Profit 194 LIHTC
Profit
PLEASANTDALE CROSSING 1000 Pleasantdale Xing Doraville 2/28/2029 Motivated 42 Section 8
DeKalb
1886 Pinedale Pl Decatur 2/14/2030 County 1 HOME
FOREST AT COLUMBIA 2505 Columbia Drive Decatur 1/1/2031 For Profit 304 LIHTC
ROBINS LANDING 3529 Glenwood Rd Decatur 1/1/2031 For Profit 304 LIHTC
THE TERRACES AT PARKVIEW 2526 Park Dr Lithonia 6/8/2031 For Profit 36 HOME
Subtotal 1,682

Total units at risk of loss within the next 10 years 3,369

Source: Public and Affordable Housing Research Corporation and National Low Income Housing Coalition, National Housing Preservation
Database, Research Tool Data Grid, Extracted March 4, 2022

99
 In DeKalb County, there are 14,803 housing units currently
receiving some type of federal subsidy tied to the housing unit
as of December 2021. About eight out of ten rental units
receiving a subsidy were assisted by the Low Income Housing
Tax Credit Program and about one out of four assisted units
had a Section 8 or Project-Based Rental Voucher subsidy.
More than one out of four assisted units in DeKalb County
face an expiring subsidy within the next ten years

included in the analysis. Only Clayton County (42%) has a higher percentage of subsidized units at
risk of loss in the next 10 years. Looking further out, more than half of the assisted units in four of
the five Metro Atlanta counties face an expiring affordability restriction within the next 20 years;
the share of affected units in metro Atlanta’s core counties ranges from 46 percent in Fulton County
to 85 percent in Clayton County. In DeKalb County, about two-thirds of all subsidized units (68%)
will be lost in the next 20 years unless their subsidies are renewed.

Housing Investment and Affordable Rental Units

How well has DeKalb County’s investments in affordable housing matched the need for affordable
housing? Figure 52 shows that publicly-assisted housing developments, based on data obtained from
the National Affordable Housing Preservation Database and current through December 2021, can
generally be found in all parts of DeKalb County. Areas lacking assisted housing developments
include Dunwoody, Tucker, the unincorporated areas between Stone Mountain and Stonecrest, and
the southernmost portions of the county. Most subsidized developments are in census tracts where
less than 40 percent of all rental units were affordable.
Almost half (49.7%) of the county’s subsidized housing with a unit-based subsidy is in the area south
of Interstate 85 and inside Interstate 285 (Table 15). About one out of every six (17.2%) rental
housing units in this part of the county is subsidized. The area south of I-85 and outside I-285 also
has a sizeable share of the county’s subsidized housing and together these two regions of the county
account for nine out of every ten rental units with a subsidy (90%), although the two areas only
account for about three-fourths (77%) of the county’s rental units.

100
Figure 52. DeKalb County Housing Developments with One or More Public Subsidies
DeKalb census tracts showing percent of rental units affordable at 80% AMI

Source: National Low Income Housing Database, December 2021 extract.

101
Table 15. Distribution of Rental Housing Units in DeKalb County with Subsidy by Area, 2021.

DeKalb North of South of I-85, South of I-85,

County I-85 Inside I-285 Outside I-285

Population for whom poverty status is determined, 2019 735,419 145,619 228,608 361,192
Percent below poverty 15.1 13.0 14.3 16.5

Rental housing stock, 2019 128,114 29,757 42,323 56,034

Percent affordable, extremely low-income households 5.8 2.9 8.8 5.0
Percent affordable, very low-income households 30.7 12.7 35.4 36.6
Percent affordable, low-income households 80.4 67.6 78.2 88.9

Renter households, 2019* 122,573 28,656 39,902 54,015

Percent cost burdened (30-50% of income) 28.1 27.2 25.6 30.5
Percent severely cost burdened (over 50% of income) 24.3 20.5 24.4 26.2

Ratio: Affordable units per renter households**

Affordable units per 100 extremely low-income renters 18 13 25 14
Affordable rental units per 100 very low-income renters 46 26 54 47
Affordable rental units per 100 low-income renters 133 155 130 127

Subsidized housing stock, 2021

Apartment developments with subsidy 120 12 65 43
Rental units with subsidy 14,602 1,427 7,265 5,910
Percent of rental units with subsidy 11.4 4.8 17.2 10.5

Number of rental units with HOME subsidy 361 7 153 201

Number of rental units with LIHTC subsidy 7,828 619 3,522 3,687
Number of rental units with project-based voucher subsidy 166 0 53 113
Number of rental units with public housing subsidy 336 0 186 150
Number of rental units with Section 8 subsidy 1,310 212 727 371
Number of rental units with multiple subsidies*** 4,464 589 2,624 1,251
Number of rental units with other subsidy 137 0 0 137

Tenant-Based Rental Assistance, 2021

Number of Housing Choice Vouchers 7,400 339 2,233 4,828
Percent of rental units with HCV 5.8 1.1 5.3 8.6

Total Rental Units with Housing Subsidy 22,002 1,766 9,498 10,738
Percent of rental units with subsidy 11.4 4.8 17.2 10.5
Percent of rental units with Housing Choice Voucher 5.8 1.1 5.3 8.6
Percent of rental units with subsidy or HCV 17.2 5.9 22.5 19.1

Source: Authors’ calculations from U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey, 2015-2019
Five-Year Estimates and National Housing Preservation Database, data ex tracted December 11, 2021.

* Excludes households with zero or negative income and households with no cash rent
** Excludes housing units with a subsidy
*** Includes subsidies from two or more subsidy programs

102
Figure 53. DeKalb County Employment Centers and Affordable Housing Investments

Source: DeKa lb Coun ty Department of P lann ing a nd Su stain a bility, D eKalb County 2021 Comprehens ive Plan 5-Year Upda te, An alysis of National Hou sin g
Preserva tion Da taba se, D ecember 2021 Up date, an d U.S. Bu reau of th e Censu s, America n C ommunity Su rvey, 2015-2019 F ive-Yea r Es tima tes .

103
Figure 54. DeKalb County Activity Centers and Affordable Housing Investments

Source: DeKa lb Coun ty Department of P lann ing a nd Su stain a bility, D eKalb County 2021 Comprehens ive Plan 5-Year Upda te, An alysis of National Hou sin g
Preserva tion Da taba se, D ecember 2021 Up date, an d U.S. Bu reau of th e Censu s, America n C ommunity Su rvey, 2015-2019 F ive-Yea r Es tima tes .

104
Housing Choice Vouchers
According to data from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, there were
approximately 7,400 households in DeKalb County that received rental assistance through HUD’s
Housing Choice Voucher program, which is administered by local housing authorities, as of
November 2021. 98 As noted earlier in Table 13 (page 96), 5.8 percent of renter-occupied units in
DeKalb County have a tenant-based subsidy (voucher). Only Fulton (9.3%) and Jefferson (7.9%)
counties, both counties with large primary cities, had higher voucher rates than DeKalb among the
11 counties included in the analysis. Polk (2.1%) and Fort Bend (2.6%) were the study counties with
the lowest rates of housing choice vouchers.
Figure 55 illustrates the spatial distribution
of Housing Choice Voucher households
provided through the Housing Authority of In 2021, 5.8 percent of renter-
DeKalb County in 2018. Based on the
percentage of renter households that received
occupied units in DeKalb
an HADC-administered housing voucher, the County had a tenant-based
greatest concentration of voucher recipients is
in South DeKalb; very few census tracts in subsidy (voucher). Only
the northern portions of the county have any Fulton (9.3%) and Jefferson
voucher holders. To obtain a more complete
picture of the distribution of voucher holders (7.9%) counties, both counties
in DeKalb County, Figure 55 relies on
November 2021 HUD data, the most recent
with large primary cities,
available at the time of this study, that had higher voucher rates
includes all voucher holders residing in
DeKalb County. This includes vouchers issued than DeKalb among the 11
by all public housing authorities, including
counties included in the
those in DeKalb County (Housing Authority of
DeKalb County, Decatur Housing Authority, analysis.
Lithonia Housing Authority) as well as others
in the greater Atlanta area (e.g., Atlanta
Housing Authority) and beyond. Though it is
not possible in this analysis to identify which housing authority issued the voucher, a recent study of
housing voucher utilization in the greater Atlanta area suggests that the clear majority of vouchers
in DeKalb County are under the administration of housing authorities in DeKalb County. 99
The left panel in Figure 56 shows the number of vouchers by census tract and the right panel shows
the percentage of rental units with a tenant-based subsidy. For both maps, areas designated as no
vouchers could contain as many as 10 voucher households as HUD does not report data for any
census tract with 10 or fewer vouchers. In terms of the number of voucher holders, Figure 56 shows
that the census tracts with the largest numbers of vouchers are primarily located in Southeast and
South Central DeKalb; one additional tract is located just east of Avondale Estates and another is in

98The data come from HUD’s Housing Choice Vouchers by Tract public database, which lists the number of
housing vouchers by census tract. However, the total figures represent an undercount of the actual number of
voucher recipients as any census tract with 10 or fewer voucher recipients are excluded from the database.
99 Michael J. Rich, Moshe Haspel, Yuk Fai Cheong, Michael Kramer, and Lance Waller, Atlanta MTW

Benchmarking Study: Housing Choice, Spatial Deconcentration, and Progress Toward Self-Sufficiency, Report
No. 3, Submitted to the Atlanta Housing Authority, Emory University, Policy Analysis Laboratory, May 2018.

105
a tract that includes the northern portions of Brookhaven and Chamblee. This pattern closely follows
the one shown in Figure 55 that mapped only HADC voucher holders.
In terms of vouchers as a share of rental housing units, the map in the right panel of Figure 56
shows a broader distribution of census tracts with a high density of voucher recipients. In 14 of the
county’s census tracts 20 percent or more of the tract’s rental units have a tenant-based subsidy, and
in two tracts—one in unincorporated DeKalb just south of East Lake and one south of Memorial
Drive outside I-285—more than half of all rental units have a unit-based subsidy.
Both the HADC map (Figure 55) and the map of all housing choice vouchers in DeKalb County
issued by all public housing authorities (Figure 56) show a concentration of housing choice vouchers
in South DeKalb County. Though several factors account for this spatial distribution, HUD recently
issued a new rule that became effective on April 1, 2018, designed to increase affordable housing
opportunities for housing voucher holders. The new rule, which applies to 24 metropolitan areas
including Atlanta, changes the way HUD calculates its Fair Market Rents (FMR), which will raise
rent payment standards in neighborhoods that previously were too low to permit voucher holders to
obtain a lease.
Under the old rule, HUD set one FMR for the entire metropolitan area, which includes both high
income and low-income areas, and thus, limited voucher participants to seeking housing in the areas
with the lowest rents. For example, the FMR for the Atlanta metro area in FY 2017 was $990 for a
two-bedroom apartment. The new rule calculates FMRs at the zip code level, which will result in
some areas having higher FMRs than under the old rule and some areas having payment standards
lower than the previous metrowide FMR. For example, the Small Area FMRs (SAFMR) in 2022 for
DeKalb County zip codes range from $1030 in Zip codes 30288 (Southwest corner of DeKalb County)
to more than $1,900 in 30319 (Brookhaven), 30324 (Morningside, Woodland Hills) and 30338
(Dunwoody). Figure 57 displays the FY 2022 SAFMRs for the Atlanta metro area (left panel) and
DeKalb County (right panel).
Simply raising the FMR to provide greater access to areas with higher rents will not by itself alter
the spatial distribution of voucher recipients. A key determinant is the availability of rental units at
or below the SAFMR in these areas and, more importantly, the willingness of landlords and property
managers to accept vouchers and the practices of public housing authorities to encourage and make
it easier for landlords to participate in the voucher program as well as assistance provided to voucher
recipients in their housing search. Other factors that influence voucher take-up include community
characteristics such as public transit access and frequency of service, the availability of affordable
daycare, and whether local jurisdictions prohibit housing discrimination based on income sources. 100

100See, for example, Eric Chyn, Joshua Hyman, and Max Kapustin, “Housing Voucher Take-Up and Labor
Market Impacts,” University of Michigan, February 11, 2018. Available at http://www-
personal.umich.edu/~jmhyman/Chyn_Hyman_Kapustin_Lease_Up_2_11_18.pdf and Mary Cunningham, “To
Increase Housing Choice, Try Incentivizing Landlords,” The Urban Institute, September 16, 2016. Available at
https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/increase-housing-choice-try-incentivizing-landlords.

106
Figure 55. Housing Choice Voucher Holders as a Percentage of Rental Households, 2018

Source: Voucher households assisted by Housing Authority of DeKalb County; map created by DeKalb
County Geographic Information Systems Department, May 7, 2018.

107
Figure 56. DeKalb County: Number of Housing Choice Vouchers and Vouchers as a Percentage of Rental Units, 2021

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Housing Choice Vouchers by Tract, Date of Coverage, November 2, 2021.
Note: Data are suppressed for tracts with ten or fewer voucher households.

108
Figure 57. HUD Small Area Fair Market Rents for Atlanta Metropolitan Area, 2022.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, FY 2022 Small Area Fair Market Rent, Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA
Metropolitan Area.

109
Federal Block Grants for Housing and Community Development
Many of the federal resources for the development of affordable housing, such as Low Income
Housing Tax Credits and HUD’s Project-Based Rental Assistance programs, are generally under the
control of state agencies and local housing authorities. Two of the most important programs under
the direct administration of county governments are the Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) program and the HOME Investment partnership (HOME) program. Both CDBG, created in
1974, and HOME, begun in 1990, are federal block grants that provide annual funding to cities and
urban counties to support a wide variety of housing and community development investments.
CDBG. CDBG funds can be used to support a wide range of housing and community development
activities. These include: acquisition of real property, construction or rehabilitation of housing, code
enforcement, homeownership assistance, public facilities and improvements (e.g., site improvements
to serve a new apartment complex to be rented to low- and moderate-income households at
affordable rents), and public services (e.g., fair housing activities, homebuyer downpayment
assistance), among others. CDBG funds must be used to give maximum feasible priority to activities
that will carry out one of the program’s three broad national objectives: (1) benefit to low- and
moderate-income families, (2) aid in the
prevention or elimination of slums or blight, or
(3) activities that meet an urgent community
The share of CDBG funds need due to existing conditions that pose a
spent by entitlement serious and immediate threat to the health or
welfare of the community where other
communities on housing was financial resources are not available to meet
28.5 percent in 2021, up such needs. 101 According to the statute, CDBG
grantees must spend 70 percent of their CDBG
slightly from 2017 but still funds to benefit low (0-50% of the area median
income) and moderate (51-80% of the area
below the 30.3 percent share median income) income persons.
for housing in 2010; spending Among CDBG entitlement communities, the
on public improvements primary uses of CDBG funds have
traditionally been housing and public
accounted for 25 percent of improvements, together accounting for more
than half of all CDBG expenditures in most
all CDBG expenditures entitlement jurisdictions. The share of CDBG
among entitlement funds spent by entitlement communities on
housing was 28.5 percent in 2021, up slightly
communities in 2021. from 2017 but still below the 30.3 percent
share for housing in 2010; spending on public
improvements accounted for 24.9 percent of all
CDBG expenditures among entitlement communities in 2021, down about two percentage points
from 2020 though still more than three percentage points higher than in 2010. 102 The largest
allocations for housing activities by CDBG entitlement communities were for the rehabilitation of

101U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Community Planning and Development,
Basically CDBG for Entitlements, September 2017. Available at
https://www.hudexchange.info/resource/19/basically-cdbg-training-guidebook-and-slides/.
102U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Community Planning and Development,
CDBG Expenditure Reports, FY 2001 – FY 2017. Available at
https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/cdbg/cdbg-expenditure-reports/.

110
single-family homes and code enforcement. Traditionally, central cities have spent a larger share of
their CDBG funds for housing than urban counties whereas urban counties have tended to place
greater emphasis on public improvements than primary cities. 103
Figure 58 illustrates the uses of CDBG funds in DeKalb County and the ten comparison counties for
program years 2014 through 2019, the most recent year for which data are available, based on
information reported in HUD’s CDBG expenditure reports. The top-left panel shows the total
amount of CDBG funds awarded to each county in 2019. The three highest grants were awarded to
Gwinnett County ($5.34 million), DeKalb County ($5.26 million), and Prince George’s County ($5.03
million). DeKalb County allocated the smallest share of its CDBG funds for housing over the period
2014-2019 (less than 6% each year) among the 11 counties included in the analysis. Fulton County
had the highest allocation for housing in any of the three years examined (64.5%) while Anne
Arundel County’s allocations for housing consistently topped 40 percent. Seven of the ten counties
included in the analysis consistently allocated CDBG funds for housing at a rate well below the
national average for entitlement communities
(dotted red line).

DeKalb County allocated the

CDBG allocations for public improvements in
the study counties is consistent with the overall
smallest share of its CDBG
pattern among urban counties nationwide, with funds for housing over the
many of the study counties allocating 40 percent
or more of their CDBG funds for public period 2014-2019 (less than
improvements and facilities. CDBG allocations
for public improvements and facilities was
5%) among the 11 counties
consistently above the national average for included in the analysis.
eight of the 11 counties included in the analysis:
three counties—Gwinnett, Volusia, and Fort
Public improvements and
Bend—consistently awarded 50 percent or more facilities represented about
of their CDBG funds for public improvements
and facilities, which was twice the average for half of all DeKalb County
entitlement communities in 2019. Anne
Arundel, the county with the highest allocations
CDBG expenditures.
for housing, was the only county that did not
award any CDBG funds for public
improvements and facilities in any of the three years reported; Fulton County also did not allocate
any CDBG funds for public improvements and facilities in 2016, which was the year in which their
allocations for housing topped 60 percent.
HUD’s Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program allows CDBG entitlement communities to leverage
their annual grant allocation to access low-cost, flexible financing for economic development,
housing, public facility, and infrastructure projects. In Fiscal 2009, DeKalb County secured a $14
million Section 108 loan which would be used with $3.6 million in FY 2009 CDBG funds to finance
the construction of three senior centers—South DeKalb, North DeKalb, and Central DeKalb. The

103For example, in 2014, cities allocated 32 percent of their CDBG funds for housing compared to 23 percent by
urban counties; urban counties, on the other hand, allocated nearly 41 percent of their CDBG funds for public
improvements compared to only 19 percent by primary cities. See Michael J. Rich, “Community Development
Block Grants at 40: Time for a Makeover,” Housing Policy Debate, 24, 1 (2014): 46-90

111
Figure 58. CDBG Allocations, 2014-2019

CDBG Award, 2019

6,000,000

5,000,000

4,000,000

3,000,000

2,000,000

1,000,000

0
DeKalb Clayton Cobb Fulton Gwinnett Jefferson Polk Volusia Anne Prince Fort Bend
Arundel George's

Housing
70.0%

60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%
DeKalb Clayton Cobb Fulton Gwinnett Jefferson Polk Volusia Anne Prince Fort Bend
Arundel George's

2014 2016 2019

112
Figure 58, cont’d

Public Improvements
90.0%

80.0%

70.0%

60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%
DeKalb Clayton Cobb Fulton Gwinnett Jefferson Polk Volusia Anne Prince Fort Bend
Arundel George's

2014 2016 2019

Public Services
80.0%

70.0%

60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%
DeKalb Clayton Cobb Fulton Gwinnett Jefferson Polk Volusia Anne Prince Fort Bend
Arundel George's

2014 2016 2019

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, CDBG Activity Ex penditure Reports, Various
years. Note: Red dotted line equals approximate national average for CDBG entitlement jurisdictions.

113
loan is to be repaid with future CDBG grant funds over a 20-year period. 104 If one includes the
Section 108 loan payment, the county’s FY 2019 allocation of CDBG funds for public facilities and
improvements exceeds 70 percent whereas only 2.63 percent of that year’s CDBG allocation was
awarded for housing.
Allocations of CDBG funds for public services was fairly comparable across the study counties, with
most spending at or very near the average for entitlement communities, which was 14 percent in
2019. Jefferson and Volusia counties generally allocated fewer CDBG funds for services than other
counties. 105
HOME. The HOME Investment Partnership program provides block grants to states, cities, and
counties to support a broad range of activities to increase the supply of affordable housing. These
include home purchase or rehabilitation financing assistance to eligible homeowners and new
homebuyers, assistance to developers to build or rehabilitate housing for rent or ownership, and
tenant-based rental assistance for up to two years, which may be renewed. Housing assisted with
HOME funds must comply with federal rent limitations (published annually by HUD), as well as
maximum per unit subsidy amounts and maximum purchase-price limits. There are also
requirements for eligible households assisted with HOME funds, which vary by type of activity. For
rental housing, at least 90 percent of the households receiving assistance must have incomes that do
not exceed 60 percent of the area median income and for projects with five or more assisted units, at
least 20 percent of the units must be occupied by families with incomes that do not exceed 50 percent
of the area median income. Households earning more than 80 percent of the area median income are
not eligible for HOME assistance. 106
According to a recent report by the Congressional Research Service, more than half of HOME funds
spent from the program’s inception through September 2020 were for rental housing ($20.7 billion or
58%, including both rental housing development and tenant-based rental assistance); homebuyer
assistance accounted for $9.3 billion (26%), and $5.88 billion (16%) was used for rehabilitation of
owner-occupied housing. Of the HOME funds used for rental housing, about 94 percent has been
used to develop rental housing (new construction or rehabilitation) with the remaining five percent
used for tenant-based rental assistance. 107
HOME funds are awarded on an annual basis to eligible entitlement jurisdictions on the basis of a
formula that uses the following elements: (1) low vacancy and poor renters; (2) rental housing with
one of four problems—overcrowding, incomplete kitchen facilities, incomplete plumbing facilities,
and high rent to income ratio; (3) number of rental units built before 1950 and that are occupied by
the poor; (4) number of substandard units likely in need of rehabilitation multiplied by a housing

104U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD Exchange, Section 108 Loan Project Summaries,
Fiscal 2009.
105The total amount of CDBG funds allocated for public services cannot exceed 15 percent of the annual
entitlement grant plus 15 percent of program income received in the prior year. Jurisdictions that obligated
more than 15 percent of their 1982 or 1983 CDBG funds for public services can exceed the 15 percent cap. See
HUD, Basically CDBG, Section 7.2, Public Services Cap.
106U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Community Planning and Development,
“HOME Investment Partnerships Program: FY 2016 HOME Information,” Available at
https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/comm_planning/affordablehousing/programs/home/.
Katie Jones, An Overview of the HOME Investment Partnerships Program (Washington, DC: Congressional
107

Research Service, January 4, 2021), pp. 18-20.

114
 production cost factor; (5) number of families
in poverty; and (6) fiscal capacity of the
DeKalb was the only county jurisdiction, as measured by population and
per capita income indicators. 108
in the study that pursued a
Figure 59 presents the uses of HOME funds by
relatively balanced strategy the eleven study counties. DeKalb County has
for deploying its HOME the second largest cumulative award of HOME
funds over the period 1992-2019 ($59.6
funds with the largest million), trailing only Prince George’s County
($63.3 million) among the study counties. The
activity being rental housing bottom panel of Figure 59 shows the
development (35%) followed cumulative use of HOME funds by the eleven
study counties reporting the number of
by homebuyer assistance units/households assisted by type of activity.
(33%), owner-occupied The figure shows wide variation among the
counties in terms of their priorities for using
housing rehabilitation (27%), HOME funds. DeKalb was the only county in
the study that pursued a relatively balanced
and tenant-based rental strategy for deploying its HOME funds with
assistance (5%). the largest activity being rental housing
development (35%) followed by homebuyer
assistance (33%), owner-occupied housing
rehabilitation (27%), and tenant-based rental
assistance (5%). Jefferson and Prince George’s counties tended to focus on homebuyer assistance
and rental housing development, Fort Bend County placed its greatest emphasis on assisting
homeowners (purchase and rehabilitation), and Volusia County devoted most of its HOME funds to
either homebuyer assistance or tenant-based rental assistance. The remaining counties tended to
place emphasis on a single type of activity: a majority of households assisted in Clayton, Gwinnett,
and Anne Arundel counties received help to purchase a home whereas Fulton and Polk counties
devoted most of their HOME resources to tenant-based rental assistance. Gwinnett and Jefferson
were the only counties that did not provide any support with their HOME funds for tenant-based
rental assistance.

Neighborhood Stabilization Program

The Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) was established by the Housing and Economic
Recovery Act of 2008 to aid state and local governments in addressing the foreclosure crisis that
emerged in the mid-2000s. The crisis began with rising delinquency rates, particularly among home
buyers with subprime loans, and accelerated when housing values plummeted in many communities
and the effects of the economic recession took hold. By 2009, when the home foreclosure rate peaked
nationally, foreclosures on prime mortgages exceeded those on subprime mortgages. These effects
were most pronounced in marginal neighborhoods where the concentration of foreclosed properties
led to increased blight and abandonment, weakened housing markets through lower home sales
prices, and in turn depressed home values for surrounding properties and in some cases surrounding
neighborhoods.

108U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Community Planning and Development, The
HOME Program Formula, no date, Available at
https://archives.hud.gov/offices/pih/codetalk/rulemaking/handouts/0306home.pdf.

115
Figure 59. Cumulative HOME Funds and Units/Households Assisted, 1992-2019

Cumulative HOME Funds

70,000

60,000

50,000
Millions of dollars

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

-
DeKalb Clayton Cobb Fulton GwinnettJefferson Polk Volusia Anne Prince Fort
Arundel George's Bend

Units/Households Assisted
100.0%

90.0%

80.0%

70.0%

60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%
DeKalb Clayton Cobb Fulton Gwinnett Jefferson Polk Volusia Anne Prince Fort Bend
Arundel George's

Homebuyer Home Rehab Rental TBRA

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, HOME Dashboard Reports.
Note: Dotted lines equal approximate national averages for HOME participating jurisdictions.

116
The NSP consisted of three rounds of grant funding to assist state and local governments as well as other
organizations in acquiring foreclosed or abandoned homes and return them to the local housing market
through resale, rehabilitation, and/or redevelopment to help stabilize neighborhoods most affected by
the foreclosure crisis and declining property values. NSP 1 consisted of $3.92 billion in formula grants
that were awarded to state and local governments. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
provided a second round of funding in 2009 (NSP 2), with $1.92 billion in competitive grants to state and
local governments, nonprofit organizations, and consortia of nonprofit entities. NSP 2 awards were made
to 56 grantees in 29 states that served 133 counties. About half of the funds ($947 million) were awarded
to grantees in states hardest hit by the foreclosure crisis (California, Florida, Michigan, Nevada, and
Ohio). 109 The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act provided a third round of funding (NSP 3) in 2010 with $1
billion in formula grants allocated to state and local governments. All three phases of NSP were
administered under the general rules and regulations of HUD’s CDBG program.

NSP funds could be used for the following activities: purchase and redevelopment of foreclosed
homes and residential properties, purchase and rehabilitation of abandoned or foreclosed homes or
residential properties, creation of land banks for foreclosed homes, demolition of blighted structures,
or demolition and redevelopment of vacant properties. NSP recipients were required to use at least
25 percent of their funds to assist families with incomes at or below 50 percent of the area median
income and all NSP activities must benefit low- or moderate-income families with incomes at or
below 120 percent of the area median income. 110
HUD’s national evaluation of the NSP program largely focused on NSP 2 and highlighted the
diversity of tools, strategies, and neighborhoods grantees pursued in addressing the foreclosure crisis
even though grantees could select among the same activities—financing, acquisition and
rehabilitation, land banking, demolition, and redevelopment. The predominant use of funds (50%)
was for acquisition and rehabilitation, including both single-family and multi-family properties. 111
Though demolition represented less than two percent of all NSP 2 spending, nearly half of all NSP
properties were demolished, though the bulk of demolitions were concentrated in a few counties.
Standalone financing in the form of second mortgages or downpayment assistance (without
acquisition, rehabilitation, or redevelopment) was used most prominently in communities most
affected by rapid rise in home values followed by sharp drops as local markets crashed.
Redevelopment was an NSP activity in fewer than half of the grantees.
According to the evaluation, “the average NSP 2 tract received relatively sparse treatment under the
program: on average, census tracts that received NSP 2 investments … had seven treated properties
and expenditures of $1.2 million. Activities were generally not spatially concentrated, with a tract-
level average of 0.57 miles between each NSP2 property and the five nearest NSP2 properties. A
small number of tracts in each market type received higher intensity treatment, however.” 112 The
NSP evaluation added that “the relatively low intensity of NSP2 treatment likely contributed to
quite limited average impacts of NSP2 on housing market outcomes.” The study found few
statistically significant differences in housing outcomes between NSP2 and control tracts. Tracts
that received more intensive treatment in the largest counties did show effects, though they
generally tended to be in the opposite direction (e.g., lower prices, higher rates of distress, vacancy,

Jonathan Spader et al, The Evaluation of the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, Report Prepared for the
109

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates, March 2015.
110U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD Exchange, “NSP: Neighborhood Stabilization
Program, NSP Eligibility Requirements,” Available at https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/nsp/nsp-
eligibility-requirements/.
111 Spader et al, The Evaluation of the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
112 Ibid, p. xv.

117
and investor purchases) which the authors attribute to grantees choosing to focus on higher need
neighborhoods with greater levels of vacant or abandoned properties. 113
Regarding broader neighborhood effects, the study found considerable variation in the effects of NSP
funding on crime in the three cities for which data were available for analysis; no significant
reduction in property or violent crime was found in Chicago and Denver whereas NSP2 investments
did lead to significantly reduced crime in Cleveland. Regarding the effects of NSP2 investments on
the sales prices of nearby houses, the study found no “systematic effect of NSP2 on nearby housing
sale prices.” Among the reasons the study identified for the lack of measurable spillover effects were
the following: the study may have been conducted too early (27% of the assisted properties were not
or only recently completed), the intensity of treatment in most neighborhoods was pretty light (seven
properties on average and the investments may not have been targeted to specific blocks), and there
may have been selection bias due to “the limitations on the supply of available properties,
competition from investors, and pressures created by NSP2’s expenditure deadlines and 1-percent
discount requirement.” 114
Table 16 reports the distribution of NSP funds to the 11 counties included our analysis. None
received funding under NSP 2 and about half of the counties received funding in both NSP 1 and
NSP 3. DeKalb County received the second-largest total NSP award ($34 million), trailing only
Clayton County ($42.5 million) among the study counties. Anne Arundel was the only county in the
study that did not receive any NSP funding.

Table 16. Neighborhood Stabilization Program Funding Awards by County

Dollar amounts in thousands

NSP 1 NSP 3
County, State Total* % Spent** Total* % Spent**

DeKalb, GA 26,027 93.0 7,972 95.0

Clayton, GA 27,732 82.9 14,797 51.2
Cobb, GA 14,081 98.1 4,591 99.7
Fulton, GA 16,854 94.7 3,683 99.2
Gwinnett, GA 23,434 87.7 3,855 85.7
Jefferson, AL 2,238 100.0 0 --
Polk, FL 22,101 95.9 8,797 97.6
Volusia, FL 8,138 99.3 7,221 78.5
Anne Arundel, MD -- -- -- --
Prince George's, MD 16,083 98.1 2,784 97.3--
Fort Bend, TX 2,796 100.0 -- --

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, CPD Cross-Program Funding Matrix,
NSP Quarterly Performance Reports, most recent report filed, downloaded 1/5/2022.

113 Ibid.
114 Ibid., pp xvii-xviii.

118
Nine of the ten NSP-funded counties devoted a majority of their funds to the purchase and
rehabilitation of foreclosed properties with expenditures to date in six of those counties exceeding 80
percent of the county’s NSP funds (Figure 60). In Polk County, 94 percent of NSP expenditures were
for purchase and rehabilitation. DeKalb again stands out among the study counties regarding its
strategic use of NSP funds as it was the only county that had NSP expenditures in five activity
categories: funding mechanisms, at 17 percent, was the second largest category of expenditure.

Figure 60. Uses of NSP 1 and NSP 3 Budgeted Funds by County

Percent of total budgeted funds*

100.0

90.0

80.0

70.0

60.0

50.0

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0
DeKalb Clayton Cobb Fulton Gwinnett Jefferson Polk Volusia Anne Prince Fort Bend
Arundel George's

Funding mechanisms Purchase & Rehabilitation

Land Banks Demolition Blighted Structures
Redevelop Demolished or Vacant Properties Administration

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, NSP Quarterly Performance Reports, Various
years/quarters (most recent NSP 1 and NSP 3 reports listed). Access on 1/15/2022

* Budgeted funds include HUD NSP grants and estimated program income/revolving loan funds.

119
A recent report commissioned by the DeKalb County Department of Community Development found
that about half of the county’s NSP 1 funds were used for the purchase, rehabilitation, and sale of
foreclosed, single-family homes; 21.4 percent were used to provide financial assistance for
homebuyers with incomes at or below 120 percent of the areawide median income and 18.8 percent
for the redevelopment of multifamily properties. 115 The remaining NSP 1 funds were used for
administration (7.8%), demolition of blighted multifamily properties (2.4%), and the creation of a
land bank (0.5%). The target area for the county’s NSP 1 program consisted of those neighborhoods
located within the top 20 zip codes in the county with the largest number of foreclosures, which
accounted for 97 percent of the advertised foreclosures in the county.
Per HUD requirements for increased targeting, DeKalb’s NSP 3 activities were confined to a single
neighborhood where the county and its partners acquired, renovated, and sold 42 vacant homes in
the Hidden Hills neighborhood; 17 of these homes were reserved for homebuyers with incomes at or
below 50 percent of AMI. The study’s main finding was that the county’s investment of $8.9 million
in the rehabilitation of 137 foreclosed single-family homes led to an increase in value of more than
$141 million across all homes in the NSP target neighborhoods, yielding a return on investment of
16 to 1. 116

Increasing the Supply of Affordable Housing

A recent report by the Urban Land Institute noted that “one major reason for the worsening housing
affordability problem is that we are simply not building enough housing as a nation, especially in the
job-rich regions where housing demand is greatest.” 117 One of those job-rich regions is metro Atlanta.
As pointed out earlier, economic and population growth in the Atlanta region since the Great
Recession has been strong, albeit somewhat weaker than that experienced by other Southern metros.
Housing starts, as measured by the number of building permits issued, has also picked up, but as
shown in Figure 61, the volume of activity in metro Atlanta’s five core counties is about half as great
as it had been prior to the Great Recession.
As shown in the bottom panel of Figure 61, much of the uptick in residential building in the post-
recession period in DeKalb County has been driven by strong demand for rental housing. In 2017
and 2018, more than half of the housing units issued building permits were for multi-family housing,
however the number of multi-family units issued building permits declined sharply in 2019 and
2020. Multi-family units issued building permits in 2021 reached nearly 1,000, which was about half
the volume recorded in 2018.
The slowdown in multi-family construction combined with the sharp decline in the loss of rental
units in small multi-family properties (less than 20 units), many of which were in older properties
that were demolished and redeveloped into higher end rental properties, has further exacerbated the
gap between the demand for affordable housing and the available supply. There is also evidence of
added pressure coming from higher income households (those close to or just above the area median
income) renting units that would be considered affordable to low-income households. Rising prices
for moderate income housing have been driven by increased competition for available units and the

Atlanta Neighborhood Development Partnership, DeKalb County: Neighborhood Stabilization Program

115

Impact on Families & Communities, September 2017, p. 9.

116 Ibid, p. 16.
Stockton Williams, Lisa Sturtevant, and Rosemarie Hepner, Yes in My Backyard: How States and Local
117

Communities Can Find Common Ground in Expanding Housing Choice and Opportunity, (Washington, DC:
Urban Land Institute, Terwilliger Center for Housing, 2017), p. 1.

120
loss of moderate-income units through conversion to higher income rental properties (see Table 3,
page 11).

Investor-Owned Housing
A recent report by the Urban Institute noted that “there is less housing available for rent and sale
than at any time in 30 years, and things are only getting worse.” Much is attributed to the lack of
housing production, which for years has failed to keep up with increasing demand, as noted above.
Though many factors are contributing to the widening gap between available units and demand, the
report points out that land costs and the availability of financing for acquisition, development, and
construction, particularly at the lower end of the housing market, are the two most important.
In addition, the sharp rise over the past few
years in housing purchases by investor
owners has further exacerbated the gap in According to a recent article
available, adequate, and affordable units. A
recent story in the Washington Post noted on investor-owned housing,
that investors purchased nearly one out of
every seven homes sold in the nation’s major
Atlanta and Charlotte led all
metropolitan areas last year based on an 40 metro areas included in
analysis of data obtained from Redfin. 118
According to the story, real estate investors the analysis, with investors
included large corporations, local companies, purchasing one out of every
and individual investors, and they are
generally buying homes to renovate and four homes sold in 2021. In
resell to higher-income buyers or hold them
for rental income. Either way, the result is
the Atlanta and Charlotte
increasing upward pressure on home prices metro areas the share of
and rents. Senator Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio),
chairman of the Senate Committee on investor-purchased homes
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs called more than doubled between
out private equity firms and corporate
landlords at a February 2022 committee 2015 and 2021.
hearing by noting “they bought up properties,
they raised rents, they cut services, they
priced out family home buyers, and they forced renters out of their homes.” 119
The Washington Post article noted that the problem of investor home purchase is especially acute in
majority Black neighborhoods, which tend to have underpriced or undervalued properties. During
2021, 30 percent of the homes purchased in majority Black zip codes were purchased by investors as
compared to 12 percent in other zip codes, a five-percentage point increase from their share in 2020.
Regionally, the share of investor purchases has been highest in the South. Atlanta and Charlotte led
all 40 metro areas included in the analysis, with investors purchasing one out of every four homes
sold in 2021, followed closely by Miami (24%) and Jacksonville (22%) (Figure 62). In the Atlanta,
Charlotte, and Jacksonville metro areas the share of investor purchased homes more than doubled
between 2015 and 2021 whereas in metro Miami and Fort Lauderdale, the share of investor
purchases declined.

118Kevin Schaul and Jonathan O’Connell, “Investors bought a record share of homes in 2021,” The Washington
Post, February 16, 2022.
119 Ibid.

121
Figure 61. Single-Family and Multi-Family Building Permits, Metro Atlanta Core Counties, 2000 – 2021

20000

18000
Fulton

16000

14000

12000
Gwinnett
10000

8000 DeKalb

6000
Cobb
4000

2000 Clayton

0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

-
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020

2011
2013
2015
2017
2019
2021
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020

2011
2013
2015
2017
2019
2021
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020

Clayton Cobb DeKalb Fulton Gwinnett

Single-family Multi-family

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, State of the Cities Data Systems, Building
Permits Database.

122
Figure 62. Percent of Purchased Homes Bought by Investors, 2015-2021
Selected Metropolitan Areas in the South

35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

2015 2021

Source: Data from Kevin Schaul and Jonathan O’Connell, “Investors bought a record share of homes in
2021,” The Washington Post, February 16, 2022.

Another recent study of investor purchases of single and multi-family homes in the year before and
after the onset of the coronavirus pandemic in three Southeastern metropolitan areas (Atlanta,
Miami, and Tampa) confirmed these trends. The study found that after a brief pause in Q2 of 2020,
purchases by investors were nearly twice as great in 2021 as they were in 2019, and point out that
“all of the increases came from the single-family housing stock.” 120 The study also confirmed that
investors tend to concentrate on purchases in predominantly Black and nonwhite Hispanic
neighborhoods and that by Q2 of 2021 investor purchases represented about one out of every four
home purchases.
The study attributes much of the rise in investor purchases, particularly among large corporate
investors, to the subprime and foreclosure crises of the 2000s and subsequent technological advances
that made it easier for corporate owners to manage large portfolios of properties. These changes,
along with public policies that facilitated the securitization of investor purchases, led to the
emergence of a new asset class, Institutional Single-Family Rentals. The study notes that
individuals went from owning 92 percent of single-family rentals in 1992 to 74 percent in 2015.
More recently, the Opportunity Zones tax incentives created by the Tax Cut and Jobs Act of 2017 has
further fueled investor-driven investment in residential properties. The Georgia Tech study points
out that recent research by Novogradec and the Urban Institute have both shown that a substantial
share of the investment in Opportunity Zones has been in real estate and that some studies have
attributed OZ designation to a 20 to 22 percent increase in home prices. 121 The Georgia Tech study,
however, found that single-family rental sales declined by 17 percent in OZs but rose by 18 percent

120Elora Raymond, Yilun Zha, Ethan Knight-Scott, and Leah Cabrera, “Large corporate buyers of residential
rental housing during the COVID19 pandemic in three southeastern metropolitan areas,” Atlanta: Georgia
Institute of Technology, Housing Crisis Research Collaborative, January 13, 2022, p. 4.
121 Ibid., p. 7.

123
in qualified census tracts, tracts with similar characteristics as OZs but not formally designated and
eligible for the OZ incentives. In DeKalb County, home prices between 2019 and 2021 rose at more
than twice the rate in qualified census tracts (87%) compared to designated OZs (42%). 122
One of the important contributions of the Georgia Tech study is its classification of the types of large
corporate investors that are purchasing single family homes for rentals. They identify three types—
trading platforms (e.g., OpenDoor, Zillow), rent-to-own firms (e.g., DIVVY Homes), and corporate
landlords (e.g., Progress Residential, American Homes 4 Rent, Invitation Homes). The
categorizations are not crisp, however, as some corporate investors have operations that fall into
multiple categories. The study notes that trading platforms and rent-to-own firms were “extremely
concentrated in Atlanta with over half of all SFR purchases concentrated in DeKalb County.” 123
Examination of the distribution of investor-purchased homes in metropolitan Atlanta in 2021 at the
zip code level confirms the Post’s finding that majority Black areas have much higher rates of
investor purchases (Figure 63). This trend is even more striking when we zoom in to take a closer
look at investor purchases in DeKalb County (Figure 64). In six zip codes, a majority of DeKalb

Figure 63. Percent of Purchased Homes Bought by Investors, Atlanta Metro Area, 2021
Atlanta Metro Zip codes

Source: Kevin Schaul and Jonathan O’Connell, “Investors bought a record share of homes in 2021,” The
Washington Post, February 16, 2022.

122 Ibid., p. 18.

123 Ibid., p. 16. The study notes that after the pandemic, SFR purchases fell in DeKalb County.

124
County home purchases in 2021 were made by investors and all of these areas are majority Black
neighborhoods. The share of investor-purchased homes in 2021 in these zip codes ranges from 51
percent in zip code 30034 (south of I-20 and east and west of I-285) to 54 percent in zip code 30294
(south of zip code 30034).

Figure 64. Percent of Purchased Homes Bought by Investors, DeKalb County, 2021
DeKalb County Zip Codes

Source: Data from Kevin Schaul and Jonathan O’Connell, “Investors bought a record share of homes in
2021,” The Washington Post, February 16, 2022.

125
This page is intentionally blank

126
Section 5
Affordable Housing Strategies in
Large Urban Counties

Overview
Housing Production Strategies
Housing Trust Funds. Housing trust funds were first established in the 1970s in California and
Maryland and the number of housing trust funds grew slowly during the 1980s and early 1990s.
Over the past 16 years, the number of housing trust funds has more than doubled, rising from
about 300 in 2005 to more than 820 in 2021. There were 69 county housing trust funds in 17
states and these county trust funds generated more than $200 million in 2021. All 11 counties in
the analysis are in states that have state housing trust funds and three counties—Polk, Volusia,
and Prince George’s—have county housing trust funds.
Inclusionary Zoning Policies. Inclusionary zoning ordinances, sometimes called inclusionary
housing, is a regulatory tool used by county and city governments to increase the supply of
affordable housing within new market rate developments. The first inclusionary zoning ordinance
was adopted by Fairfax County, Virginia, in 1971. As of 2019, there were more than 1,000
jurisdictions with inclusionary housing programs in 31 states and the District of Columbia
including more than 40 counties. Prince George’s is the only county included in the analysis with
an inclusionary housing program though several counties (or their municipalities) are actively
considering the adoption of an inclusionary housing ordinance.
Low Income Housing Tax Credits. The Low Income Housing Tax Credit, created in 1986, is the
primary federal program used to develop affordable rental housing. According to HUD, the LIHTC
program provides the equivalent of nearly $8 billion in annual budget authority to state agencies
for affordable housing. All 11 counties in the analysis have LIHTC projects and the share of
assisted housing units with LIHTC subsidies ranges from about one third in Jefferson County to
more than 75 percent in DeKalb, Clayton, Cobb, Fulton, and Fort Bend counties.
Workforce Housing. Workforce housing first began to appear in the early 2000s and generally
referred to the need for housing for teachers, police officers, fire fighters, emergency service
workers, and nurses, among others, to live affordably in the communities where they worked.
Though definitions varied widely from community to community, the income of these workers
generally ranges between 60 and 120 percent of the areawide median income, and in some
communities, go as high as 150 percent of AMI. About half of the counties in the study, including
DeKalb, have taken some specific action to encourage the development of workforce housing in
their jurisdictions and two more are actively considering a workforce housing initiative.

127
Housing Preservation Strategies
Rent Control. Rent control strategies were most widely used between the late 1960s and early
1980s, particularly in communities with very tight housing markets. As rents have recently soared
across the country, many jurisdictions have begun to revisit rent control as an affordable housing
strategy. Only one of the 11 counties included in the analysis has had any experience with rent
control (Anne Arundel).
Short Term Rentals. The rapid growth of home sharing and short-term rentals (STRs) through
web-based platforms such as Airbnb and VRBO has generated intense public debate concerning
their effects on local housing markets. In response to these concerns, some communities have
passed laws or ordinances that ban or limit short-term rentals. Five counties included in the study
have seen their county or municipal governments take action short-term rentals: Polk, Prince
George’s, Clayton, DeKalb (City of Brookhaven), and Fulton (City of Atlanta).
Code Enforcement. Enforcement of local housing codes is a regulatory strategy used by local
governments to preserve their housing stock. While code enforcement can be an effective housing
preservation strategy, it often requires a companion housing assistance program (e.g.,
rehabilitation loans or grants) to prevent the loss of affordable units or the displacement of low-
income tenants (affordability restrictions or tenant-based rental assistance). All 11 counties
included in the analysis have code enforcement programs.
Housing Rehabilitation Loans and Grants. Many local jurisdictions have established CDBG- and
HOME-funded rehabilitation loan and/or grant programs. Grant programs are usually reserved
for very low-income homeowners and/or the elderly. Loan programs generally offer below market
interest rates and provide a steady stream of income for jurisdictions as the loan repayments
(principal and interest) are considered program income, which allow for additional rehabilitation
loans to be made. All 11 counties included in the study have allocated CDBG funds for single-
family housing rehabilitation programs and seven of the 11 counties have awarded more than half
of their HOME funds for single-family housing rehabilitation; four counties, including DeKalb,
have spent more than half of their HOME funds on multi-family housing rehabilitation.
Preservation of Federally Subsidized Housing. Initially, the preservation of federally-subsidized
housing was largely a federal strategy though today state and local governments have taken
increased responsibility for addressing the preservation of federally-subsidized housing. Only one
of the 11 study counties, Prince George’s, has taken specific programmatic action to preserve its
supply of federally-subsidized housing.
Land Banks. Land banks are public or nonprofit corporations created for the purpose of returning
vacant, abandoned, and tax delinquent properties into productive use. Only four of the study
counties—Clayton, DeKalb, Fulton, and Jefferson—have used land banks and land banking as a
housing preservation strategy.
Tax Relief. The clear majority of state and local governments provide some type of property tax
relief for elderly homeowners and for lower-income home owners who live in their homes for some
specified period of time. All eleven counties in the study have state property tax relief programs
and most also supplement that assistance with additional homestead exemptions, credits, or
rebate programs. Most counties help with the elderly, disabled, and veterans. A few counties
provide additional property tax relief for low-income homeowners.

128
 Asset Building Strategies
Family-Self Sufficiency (FSS). The FSS program, created in 1990, is designed to increase the
earned income of HUD-assisted families and reduce their dependence on public assistance and
HUD rental subsidies. Nine of the 11 counties included in the analysis (all but Gwinnett and Fort
Bend) have a county or municipal housing authority participating in HUD’s FSS program.
Homeownership Education and Counseling. There are many public, private, and nonprofit
organizations that provide homeownership education and counseling programs to assist potential
homebuyers making informed decisions about homeownership and in navigating the home-buying
process. All eleven counties included in the analysis have homebuyer education and counseling
programs available for first-time homebuyers.
Homebuyer Assistance. A variety of federal, state, and local programs provide financial assistance
designed to increase home ownership. All fifty states have some type of home buyer program,
though the number of programs, their target populations, and types of financial incentives
available vary widely. The share of HOME funds (1992-2019) used to support homebuyer
programs ranges from about 10 percent in Fulton County to more than 85 percent in Clayton and
Gwinnett counties; DeKalb County has spent 33 percent of its cumulative HOME funds on
homebuyer assistance
Cooperative Housing. A housing cooperative is a form of housing tenure in which people come
together to own and control the buildings they live in. The residents purchase shares in the
cooperative and pay a monthly fee to cover the property’s operating expenses. Seven of the eleven
counties included in this analysis, including DeKalb, have at least one cooperative housing
community in their county.
Community Land Trusts. Community Land Trusts are private nonprofit organizations that
acquire and hold land for community benefit. Many CLTs were created to promote affordable
housing ownership opportunities. In this scenario, the CLT permanently retains ownership of the
land, and the homeowners own the housing. Only three of the counties included in the analysis
have a community land trust: Fulton (City of Atlanta), Jefferson, and Prince George’s.
Section 8 Homeownership Program. The Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998
gave public housing authorities permission to provide a homeownership option to families that
receive Section 8 tenant-based or Housing Choice Voucher assistance. Eight of the 11 counties
included in the analysis currently have at least one low income family assisted through their
housing authority or a municipal housing authority enrolled in the Housing Choice Voucher
Homeownership Program. Prince George’s County had the largest number of families (80) enrolled
in 2021 followed by DeKalb County (43).

This section summarizes strategies that DeKalb County and the other core counties in Metro Atlanta
as well as the large urban counties in our comparison group have adopted to provide more affordable
housing choices for their residents. We organize the presentation into three subsections: 1) housing
production strategies, 2) housing preservation strategies, and 3) asset-building strategies. 124

Diane K. Levy, Jennifer Comey, and Sandra Padilla, “Keeping the Neighborhood Affordable: A Handbook of
124

Housing Strategies for Gentrifying Areas,” Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, 2006.

129
 Housing Production Strategies
Table 17 presents the utilization of several widely used tools for increasing the supply of affordable
housing by the eleven counties included in the analysis. These tools include housing trust funds,
inclusionary zoning, utilization of the Low Income Housing Tax Credit, housing or residential
finance authorities, and incentives for the provision of workforce housing.

Housing Trust Funds

Housing trust funds were first established in the 1970s in California and Maryland and the number
of housing trust funds grew slowly during the 1980s and early 1990s. Over the past 16 years, the
number of housing trust funds has more than doubled, rising from about 300 in 2005 to more than
820 in 2021. 125
Housing trust funds are generally established by government entities at the city, county, or state
level to manage financial resources dedicated to increasing the supply of affordable housing.
Generally housing trust funds are supported by a dedicated public revenue source outside the
normal budgetary process. The most popular source is the real estate transfer tax, which is used by
15 states; seven states have dedicated revenues from their document recording fees and housing
trust funds in eight states, including Georgia, receive appropriations from their state general
funds. 126 A variety of other dedicated revenue sources are also used to support state housing trust
funds including unclaimed property funds, tobacco tax receipts, interest on title escrow accounts,
foreclosure filing fees, excise taxes on large economic development projects, state bond proceeds, and
state tax credits. 127
Eligible uses of housing trust funds vary widely, depending on enabling legislation. The most
common uses, based on the number of states reporting such use, include new construction (42
states), preservation or rehabilitation of existing multifamily housing (40 states), acquisition (38
states), housing for those with special needs (38 states), elderly housing (35 states),
preservation/rehabilitation of single-family housing (34 states), permanent homeless housing (33
states), and transitional housing (30 states). Among other permissible uses in some states are
housing for ex-offenders, vacant/abandoned properties, downpayment assistance, energy efficiency
improvements, renewable energy, water efficiency, tenant-based rental assistance, homeless
services, foreclosure prevention, community land trusts, and the like. 128
Eligible recipients, in order of most to least common, include nonprofit developers, local
governments, for-profit developers, local housing authorities, tribal governments, homebuyers or
homeowners, and landlords. 129 While most state housing trust funds have some type of affordability

125 Housing Trust Fund Project, Washington, D.C.: Center for Community Change, Accessed, February 23, 2022.
126 The Georgia General Assembly created the State Housing Trust Fund in 1988, based on an annual
appropriation of $3.3 million, which was to be used to provide state matching funds for federal homelessness
assistance programs as well as to provide subsidies accompanying other state and federal programs. The fund
“provides virtually no support directly to local governments in meeting housing needs.” See Frank S. Alexander,
Housing Trust Funds for Local Governments in Georgia, Washington, DC: Fannie Mae Foundation, March 2002,
p. vii.
Housing Trust Fund Project, Opening Doors to Homes for All: The 2016 Housing Trust Fund Survey Report,
127

Washington, DC: Center for Community Change, 2016, p. 6.

128 Ibid., p. 10.
129 Ibid., p. 9.

130
Table 17. Housing Production Strategies by County

Housing Trust
Housing Trust Fund Low-Income Workforce
County Fund Inclusionary Zoning Housing Finance
(Local Level) Housing Tax Creditsb Housing
(State Level)a Corporation/Authority

AMI: ≤ 120%
Density bonus
City of Clarkston: City of Brookhaven:
Yes: Realtor education/NSP
Yes Adopted 2018 Yes
DeKalb, GA Homeless Trust
DeKalb County: City of Decatur: 12,407 None
Fund City of Tucker Downtown
No Adopted 2020
Overlay District:
Density bonus for workforce housing

Yes: Planned:
Yes
Clayton, GA Homeless Trust No No None County’s comprehensive plan calls for
3,182
Fund the development of workforce housing

Mitchell Chase Subdivision:

31 homes, less than 80% AMI

Yes: Redevelopment overlay district:

Yes Requires 10% of residential units must
Cobb, GA Homeless Trust No No None
5,771 be designated as workforce housing
Fund

Under consideration:
Density bonus

City of Atlanta:
Atlanta Beltline City of Atlanta:
Affordable Housing Bond financing or tax incentives require
Trust Fund (2005) 10% set aside for workforce housing

City of Atlanta: Fulton County:

Yes: Community/Housing Ordinance:
Yes Invest Atlanta Cedar Grove Agriculture mixed-use
Fulton, GA Homeless Trust Development Trust City of Atlanta
27,133 overlay district requires 10% of
Fund Fund (English Adopted: 2016
residential units must be designated as
Avenue, Vine City workforce housing
neighborhoods)
Workforce housing group in North
Affordable Housing Fulton was established in 2019
Trust Fund (2021)

131
 Housing Trust
Housing Trust Fund Low-Income Workforce
County Fund Inclusionary Zoning Housing Finance
(Local Level) Housing Tax Creditsb Housing
(State Level)a Corporation/Authority

Planned:
Yes:
Yes Under County commissioners considering a
Gwinnett, GA Homeless Trust No Under consideration
3,807 Consideration comprehensive housing policy that
Fund
would include workforce housing

Yes: Yes
Jefferson, AL No No None No
Unfunded 4,218

Yes
Yes: Partial waiver of Impact Fees
Yes: Yes Polk County Housing Between 80 and 120% AMI
Polk, FL No No
SHIP funds 3,304 Finance Authority 50% of fees waived if buyer remains in
(1978) home for 7 years

No:
but Yes
SHIP funds are Volusia County Housing Study in 2007:
Yes: Yes
Volusia, FL similar No Finance Authority No subsequent action on proposed
SHIP funds 4,350
ordinance
Proposed HTF under (1981)
consideration

Yes: County:
Density bonus
Housing No Yes
Anne Arundel, MD No None Waiver of impact fees
Investment Trust City of Annapolis: 2,524
Fund Yes (2004)

Adopted: 1991;
Ended: 1996
Yes:
Yes 2019 Housing Study
Affordable Yes
Prince George's, MD Housing Investment recommends the county None Workforce Housing Tax Credits
Housing Trust 8,469
Trust Fund pursue inclusionary
Fund
zoning in a “targeted
way”

132
 Housing Trust
Housing Trust Fund Low-Income Workforce
County Fund Inclusionary Zoning Housing Finance
(Local Level) Housing Tax Creditsb Housing
(State Level)a Corporation/Authority

Yes
Yes: Fort Bend County
Yes
Fort Bend, TX Housing Trust No No Housing Finance No
2,708
Fund Authority
(1980)
aCenter for Community Change, Housing Trust Fund Project, 2022
bExcludes LIHTC subsidies that are part of developments with multiple subsidies.

133
standard for both renter and homeowner
housing, the thresholds vary widely across
states and programs within states. The most There were more than 820
common threshold was 80 percent of area
median income. States also vary in their
housing trust funds in 47
methods for establishing priorities for fund states in 2021, which
allocations and the priorities established.
Many states award extra review points to collectively, awarded more
emphasize their priorities; about half of the than $3 billion to meet
states with housing trust funds award bonus
points for projects that serve the lowest critical housing needs. State
incomes (24 states) and for leveraged
funding (22 states). 130
housing trust funds ($1.7
The Housing Trust Fund Project at the billion) provide the
Center for Community Change notes that predominant share of
there were more than 820 housing trust
funds administered by states, cities, housing trust fund
counties, and regional governments in 2021
that generated more than $3 billion for
investments followed by city
affordable housing. State housing trust housing trust funds ($1.2
funds ($1.7 billion) have been created in 47
states and provide the predominant share of billion) and county housing
housing trust fund investments. State trust funds ($200 million).
housing trust funds, on average, generate
about $7.00 in public and private funds for
every housing trust fund dollar invested.
There were more than 600 city housing trust funds in 2021 and these funds generated $1.2 billion in
revenues with the most common source of revenue coming from developer fees. City housing trust
funds, on average, leveraged about $6.00 in additional public and private investment for every trust
fund dollar invested in affordable housing.
In 2021, there were 69 county housing trust funds in 17 states and these county trust funds
generated more than $200 million in 2021. County trust fund investments generated about $8.50
additional public and private dollars for every trust fund dollar invested in affordable housing.
According to the Center for Community Change’s 2016 survey, the most popular revenue source for
county housing trust funds is the document recording fee; other revenue sources used to support
county housing trust funds include sales taxes, developer fees, real estate transfer taxes, food and
beverage tax, and property tax. 131
In 2008, the Housing and Economic Recovery Act created the National Housing Trust Fund (NHTF),
which was the first new federal housing resource to support the development of affordable housing
since 1974. The NHTF is funded from dedicated sources (4.2 basis points on the new business of
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) and the first awards ($174 million) were made to states in 2016 as
block grants to assist states and their communities in meeting their most important housing

130 Ibid., p. 11.

131 While the report does not mention the number of counties with county trust funds, the Housing Trust Fund

website listing indicates 135 counties across the nation with county housing trust funds. See
https://housingtrustfundproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/County-htfund-admin-and-date-2017.pdf.

134
challenges. 132 According to the statute, 90 percent of NHTF funds must be used for rental housing. A
report by the National Low Income Housing Coalition, which administers the NHTF, noted that all
50 states identified seniors as a key target population, half of the states indicated they would focus
on the homeless (26 states) and people with disabilities (24 states). Veterans were a key target group
in nine states and other at-risk populations (e.g., children aging out of foster care, domestic violence
victims, formerly incarcerated persons) were identified by six states. 133
Georgia’s FY 2021 Notice of Funding Availability for the National Housing Trust Fund Program
announced that up to $20 million in NHTF funding was available. 134 Georgia intends to use all its
HTF allocation for rental housing due to the “high demand for rental housing.” The state also
indicated that it did not intend to subgrant any NHTF funds and will disburse all its NHTF funds
statewide through the Department of Community Affairs’ Multifamily Grant/Loan Program (via
request for proposal) and the Georgia Housing Tax Credit Program (including the Federal LIHTC
and Georgia State Credit). All NHTF funds “that Georgia receives will be used to create rental
housing affordable for extremely low-income (ELI) households with incomes at or below 30% of Area
Median Income (AMI).” 135
Comparison Counties. As shown in Table 17, all 11 counties in the analysis are in states that have
state housing trust funds and three counties—Polk, Volusia, and Prince George’s—have county
housing trust funds.
Part of Fulton County is served by several housing trust funds that have been established over the
years to serve city of Atlanta neighborhoods. The Community/Housing Development Trust Fund was
created in 1989 by the City of Atlanta, the Georgia World Congress Center Authority and Fulton
County to assist in the revitalization of the Vine City and English Avenue communities.
The Atlanta BeltLine Affordable Housing Trust Fund, created in 2005, provides funds to nonprofit
and for-profit developers to support the multifamily and single-family developments along the
Atlanta BeltLine in the city of Atlanta that serve families at or below 60 percent of AMI. 136 The fund
receives 15 percent of the revenue raised through a special tax allocation district that was created to
support development of the Atlanta BeltLine and uses those revenues to support the issuance of
housing bonds.
The fund has a goal of creating 5,600 affordable housing units over 25 years. In December 2021, the
BeltLine Affordable Housing Trust fund provided a $2 million grant to support a $43.6 million
multifamily development with 116 affordable rental units being developed by Atlanta Housing (the

132Due to the financial crisis, a temporary suspension was placed on the HTF assessments, which were lifted in
December 2014. HUD announced in April 2016 that the first round of HTF awards would be made to the states
as formula block grants. See Ed Gramlich, Housing the Lowest Income People: An Analysis of National Housing
Trust Fund Draft Allocation Plans (Washington, DC: National Low Income Housing Coalition, February 2017),
p. 1.
133National Low Income Housing Coalition, HTF: The Housing Trust Fund Investments in Year One. Available
at http://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/HTF_Investments.pdf.
Georgia Department of Community Affairs, Georgia Housing and Finance Authority, Multifamily Affordable
134

Housing, 2021 Notice of Funding Availability, National Housing Trust Fund Program.
Georgia Department of Community Affairs, State of Georgia National Housing Trust Fund Allocation Plan,
135

Updated 15 October 2021, p. 4.

136Invest Atlanta, Atlanta Beltline Affordable Housing Trust Fund. Available at
https://www.investatlanta.com/development/residential-incentives/beltline-affordable-housing-trust-fund-bahtf/.

135
Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta). 137 In February 2022, the Atlanta BeltLine Affordable
Housing Trust Fund committed $2 million toward the development of 250 units of affordable housing
in the Peoplestown neighborhood adjacent to the the BeltLine’s Southside Trail. To date, the Atlanta
BeltLine Affordable Housing Trust Fund has worked with a variety of organizations to create or
preserve nearly 3,000 affordable housing units within the BeltLine tax allocation district and more
than 4,600 affordable units have been created within walking distance of the Atlanta BeltLine. 138
In addition, in December 2021, the Atlanta City Council approved legislation and a charter
amendment that creates the “Building the Beloved Community Affordable Housing Trust Fund,”
which will be funded with two percent of the city’s general fund revenues. The two percent will be
phased in over a three-year period, beginning with one percent in FY 2023, one and one-half percent
in FY 2024, and two percent for FY 2024 and FY 2025. 139 The city’s FY 2022 general fund budget is
about $710 million so a one percent commitment yields an approximate investment for the affordable
housing trust fund of $7.1 million.
Though Polk and Volusia counties technically do not have housing trust funds as identified by the
Housing Trust Fund Project, both counties operate funds that are similar in scope and function to
housing trust funds. Both counties receive annual formula allocations from the state of Florida under
the State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP), created in 1992, to provide funds to counties and
eligible cities to create local housing partnerships, increase the production and preservation of
affordable housing, further the housing element of local government comprehensive plans, and
increase housing-related employment. SHIP is funded through revenues derived from Florida’s
Documentary Stamp Tax on real estate transactions. Currently, SHIP funds all 67 counties in
Florida as well as 52 cities that qualify as CDBG entitlement cities. Estimated appropriations for
Fiscal 2022 were $147 million for local governments. 140 The minimum grant to counties is $350,000;
Polk County’s allocation FY 2022 allocation is $3.7 million, and Volusia County will receive $2.6
million. 141
In return, counties and cities are required to “establish a local housing assistance program by
ordinance; develop a local housing assistance plan and housing incentive strategy; amend land
development regulations or establish local policies to implement the incentive strategies; form
partnerships and combine resources to reduce housing costs; and ensure that rent or mortgage
payments within the targeted areas do not exceed 30 percent of the area median income limits,
unless authorized by the mortgage lender.” 142
SHIP dollars can be used to support a wide variety of affordable housing activities including new
construction, rehabilitation, down payment and closing cost assistance, acquisition of property, and

Julia Sanders, “Atlanta Housing Secures Financing for $43.6M Affordable Development in Reynoldstown
137

Neighborhood,” Rebusiness Online, December 9, 2021.

138“Atlanta BeltLine, Inc. Supports Creation of 250 Affordable Housing Units,” Metro Atlanta CEO, February
23, 2022.
Collin Kelley, “Atlanta City Council Establishes Affordable Housing Fund, Approves Infrastructure Sales
139

Tax Referendum,” Reporters Newspapers and Atlanta Intown, December 7, 2021.

140While Florida law provides a dedicated funding source for affordable housing, the state legislature has
frequently reallocated funds, partially or totally, from the housing trust fund every years since fiscal 2009 into
the General Revenue fund for various unrelated projects. See Florida Association of Counties, Legislative
Highlights 2021, p.8.
141 Florida Housing Finance Corporation, SHIP Collections and Disbursements, Accessed February 23, 2022.
142Florida Housing Finance Corporation, State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP), Available at
http://www.floridahousing.org/programs/special-programs/ship---state-housing-initiatives-partnership-program.

136
matching dollars for other federal housing programs. In addition, 65 percent of SHIP funds must be
spent on eligible homeowner activities and a minimum of 75 percent on eligible construction
activities. Thirty percent of funds must support very-low income households (up to 50 percent of
AMI), an additional 30 percent for low income households (up to 80 percent of AMI) and the
remaining funds can assist households up to 140 percent of AMI. Administrative expenses are
limited to 10 percent. 143
In Volusia County, nonprofit groups, business leaders, and county officials began meeting in July
2021 to discuss creation of an affordable housing strategy that includes the creation of a housing
trust fund.
Prince George’s County announced in March 2017 that it was investing $5.1 million in county budget
funds in the county’s housing trust fund to support two new programs—the Workforce Housing Gap
Financing Program ($2.6 million), to spur the development of mixed income communities, and the
Pathway to Purchase Program ($2.5 million), to assist approximately 150 first-time homebuyers. 144
The county’s Housing Investment Trust Fund was created in 2012, though this marked the county’s
initial investment in the fund. In November 2021, the county announced the creation of the Right of
First Refusal Preservation Fund, capitalized with $15 million in American Rescue Plan funds, to
support preservation of affordable housing in the county. The county will require property owners of
apartment complexes of 20 units or more to notify the county of its intention to sell and the county
can either exercise its right of first refusal and buy the property or assign its buying rights to a third
party, such as a nonprofit housing organization. The county has agreed it will keep three-quarters of
the rental units affordable to households earning less than 80 percent of the area median income. 145

Inclusionary Zoning Policies

Inclusionary zoning ordinances, sometimes called inclusionary housing, is a regulatory tool used by
county and city governments to increase the supply of affordable housing within new market rate
developments. According to a report on inclusionary zoning practices, “the purpose of inclusionary
housing programs is to not only increase the supply of affordable housing in municipalities but to
disperse the affordable units throughout the community.” 146
Generally, inclusionary zoning ordinances require a certain percentage of new units to be set aside
as affordable housing. Both the percentage of new units required and the level of affordability to be
achieved vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. More than half of the jurisdictions with inclusionary
zoning programs require that affordable units are affordable to households earning between 50 and
80 percent of the areawide median income. 147 There is also variation in requirements for how long
the units must remain affordable, typically 10-20 years, and the minimum size of the development
(number of units) required to comply with the ordinance. One recent study found that more than 80

143 Ibid.
144 “County Executive Announces $5.1 Million Investment in the Housing Trust Fund,” Housing and

Community Development News, March 15, 2017.

Jack Pointer, “Prince George’s County launches fund to preserve affordable housing,” WTOP News,
145

November 29, 2021.

146Mary Anderson, Opening the Door to Inclusionary Housing, (Chicago, IL: Business and Professional People
for the Public Interest (PBI), 2003), p. 5.
Brian Stromberg and Lisa Sturtevant, “What Makes Inclusionary Zoning Happen?” Washington, DC:
147

National Housing Conference, May 2016, p. 3.

137
percent of existing inclusionary zoning programs were mandatory, which require developers to meet
the policy’s conditions as part of the approval process for their projects moving forward. 148
To offset developer costs of compliance, local jurisdictions tend to provide a variety of incentives
including a density bonus; relaxation or waiver of related zoning restrictions such as height, building
type, open space, and the like; infrastructure support; and waiver or prioritization of permit fees,
among others. 149
The first inclusionary zoning ordinance was adopted by Fairfax County, Virginia, in 1971, though
that ordinance was struck down as unconstitutional by the state courts. A few years later
Montgomery County, Maryland, adopted the first inclusionary zoning ordinance that survived a
court challenge. 150 California has a statewide inclusionary zoning policy and nearly every
municipality in New Jersey has an inclusionary zoning policy due to a State Supreme Court decision
that held that all municipalities have a constitutional obligation to meet the current and future
housing needs of low- and moderate-income families. 151
According to a recent report by the Lincoln Land Institute, there were nearly 900 jurisdictions with
inclusionary housing programs in 25 states and the District of Columbia at the end of 2016. 152 Nearly
nine out of ten of these jurisdictions were found in three states, all with statewide inclusionary
housing policies: New Jersey (45 percent), Massachusetts (27 percent), and California (17 percent).
The study found that more than 40 counties or county divisions (townships) had inclusionary
housing program in 2016. The report notes that based on estimates derived from their sample, “the
number of programs roughly doubled each decade with over 70 percent of programs being adopted
after 2000.” 153
Overall, the study estimates that based on information from 373 jurisdictions with inclusionary
housing policies, a total of $1.7 billion in impact or in-lieu fees were generated for affordable housing
and respondent jurisdictions reported nearly 174,000 units of affordable housing were created since
the inception of the jurisdiction’s inclusionary housing policy. The study authors not that the 174,000
affordable units “almost entirely excludes additional units created with the $1.7 billion in fees.” 154
The Grounded Solutions Network, with support from the National Housing Conference and the
Lincoln Institute for Land Policy, has been tracking inclusionary zoning policies based on a national
census of inclusionary housing programs conducted between 2018 and 2020 which continues to be
updated. According to their research, at the end of 2019 there were more than 1,000 inclusionary

148 Ibid., p. 2.
149 Levy et al, Keeping the Neighborhood Affordable, pp. 5-6.
Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, “Inclusionary Zoning Background and Examples,” Retrieved
150

February 18, 2022.

151For background on the New Jersey Mount Laurel decisions see Michael Danielson, The Politics of Exclusion,
(New York: Columbia University Press, 1976) and Charles M. Haar, Suburbs Under Siege: Race, Space, and
Audacious Judges (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996).
152Inclusionary housing was defined as housing created through inclusionary housing zoning ordinances as well
as impact fee-based or in-lieu fees. Emily Thaden and Ruoniu Wang, Inclusionary Housing in the United States:
Prevalence, Impact, and Practices, Working Paper WP 17ET1, (Cambridge: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy,
September 2017), p. 11.
153 Ibid., p. 36.
154 Ibid., p. 31.

138
housing programs located in 31 states and Washington, DC. 155 Among these programs, there were
two-and-a-half times as many mandatory programs as voluntary ones.
The organization’s webpage includes several resources to assist local communities in crafting and
adopting an inclusionary zoning program. These include an interactive webpage with a mapping tool
that identifies communities with inclusionary zoning programs and provides information on state-
level requirements regarding the adoption of local programs as well as several research reports that
summarize the characteristics of inclusionary zoning programs including the previously mentioned
report by the Lincoln Institute for Land Policy.

There were more than 1,000 jurisdictions with inclusionary

housing programs in 31 states and the District of Columbia at
the end of 2019. More than 40 counties or county divisions
(townships) have inclusionary housing programs. The number
of inclusionary zoning programs has roughly doubled each
decade, with over 70 percent of programs being adopted after
2000.

Through the efforts of the Lincoln Institute for Land Policy and the Grounded Solutions Network,
among others, we have a much better understanding of the breadth and depth of inclusionary
housing programs as a tool for increasing the supply of affordable housing. Based on the Grounded
Solution Network’s most recent study, we know that more than nine out of ten local programs have
affordability requirements that least for 30 years or longer; the average set aside for affordable units
is 16 percent and more than one out of four programs require a set aside of 20 percent or higher; and
that inclusionary housing programs do very well at targeting assistance to low income households
with incomes between 50 and 80 percent of area median income. 156
Assessing the effectiveness of inclusionary housing programs, however, has proven to be difficult,
due in large part to the fact that many programs do not have tracking systems in place to document
compliance and program outcomes, making it difficult estimate how many affordable units have
actually been produced through local inclusionary housing programs. Estimates that are available
are generally limited to a subset of programs, which tend to be more established and have greater
capacity for administration and monitoring.

Ruoniu Wang and Sowmya Balachandran, Inclusionary Housing in the United States: Prevalence, Practices,
155

and Production in Local Jurisdictions as of 2019,

156 Ibid.

139
 Critics of inclusionary housing programs point
out that such policies result in higher housing
Research studies to date prices and reduce the production of new units,
provide mixed evidence on which has led a number of states to preempt
local inclusionary housing programs. The
inclusionary zoning research studies that have been completed,
however, provide mixed evidence on
outcomes. One recent review inclusionary zoning outcomes. One recent
noted that “the type of impact review noted that “the type of impact these
laws have appears dependent on the design of
these laws have appears the policy, the neighborhood location, and the
dependent on the design of housing market in the area.” 157
Though fewer research studies have examined
the policy, the neighborhood inclusionary housing’s effects on economic
location, and the housing opportunity and reducing racial disparities,
reviews of those studies note that inclusionary
market in the area.” zoning policies “do generally improve economic
integration and provide low-income residents
access to high-opportunity neighborhoods” and
that there is limited evidence that suggests
that “on average, tracts were IZ units were built became more racially integrated than
neighborhoods without IZ units.” 158
Comparison Counties. Table 17 shows that Prince George’s is the only county included in the
analysis that has adopted an inclusionary housing ordinance. The city of Atlanta, located in Fulton
County, adopted an inclusionary housing ordinance in 2017.
Prince George’s had an inclusionary housing policy, adopted in 1991, but the ordinance was repealed
five years later “because County officials believed the County had more than its ‘fair share’ of the
region’s affordable housing.” The ordinance, which applied only to developments of 50 units or more,
provided a 10 percent density bonus to developers in exchange for the commitment of 10 percent of
the project’s housing units as affordable housing (at or below 70 percent of the Washington area
median income). During the time the ordinance was operative, 1,600 units of affordable housing were
created. 159 In 2020, the county concluded that inclusionary zoning around the county’s rail transit
stations was not feasible due to market conditions, although its neighboring counties (Howard and
Montgomery) both have inclusionary zoning policies in place. 160
Several counties and cities in Maryland have adopted a Moderately Priced Dwelling Units program,
modelled after Montgomery County’s MDPU program that was established in 1974 when the County

157Kriti Ramakrishnan, Mark Treskon, and Solomon Greene, “Inclusionary Zoning: What Does the Research
Tell Us about the Effectiveness of Local Action?” Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, January 2019, pp. 4-5.
158 Ibid, pp. 5-6.
159 Hogan Lovells, Laura Biddle, Meghan Edwards-Ford, Joanna Huang, Deepika Ravi, Lisa Strauss, and Mary

Anne Sullivan, Unfilled Promises: Affordable Housing in Metropolitan Washington, Washington, D.C.:
Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, June 2014, p. 19. See also, Karen
Destorel Brown, “Expanding Affordable Housing through Inclusionary Zoning: Lessons from the Washington
Metropolitan Area,” Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, Center of Urban and Metropolitan Policy,
October 2001.
Shreya Vuttaluru, “As Prince George’s Considers Zoning Rewrite, Community Members Push for Affordable
160

Housing,” The Diamondback, October 12, 2021.

140
Council passed legislation creating the program and overrode the veto of the County Executive. The
program was based on three principles: 1) “moderately priced housing should be dispersed
throughout the county,” 2) “employees who work in the county should have the opportunity to leave
near their work,” and 3) housing should be provided for the county’s young and elderly residents.” 161
The city of Annapolis in Anne Arundel County adopted a MPDU law in 2004 that requires 15 percent
of all new residential developments (for sale or rental) to be moderately priced units, defined as units
affordable to families at or below 80 percent of the area median income for new homes available for
purchase and at or below 100 percent of fair market rents for rental units. 162
In November 2017, the city of Atlanta became the first city in Georgia to adopt an inclusionary
zoning ordinance. The ordinances, which are targeted to neighborhoods on the city’s westside (near
the new Mercedes-Benz Stadium) and along the Atlanta BeltLine, require developers to dedicate a
portion of new residential developments containing ten or more rental units to households earning
between 60 and 80 percent of the area median income. Developers can choose between setting aside
10 percent of rental units to households at 60 percent of the area median income or 15 percent of
units to households at 80 percent of the area median income. Alternatively, developers can opt out of
the requirement by paying a one-time in-lieu fee to a housing trust fund to develop future affordable
units or preserve existing units. The fee varies by location within the BeltLine overlay district,
ranging from $133,838 to $186,605; there is one fee for the Westside Overlay District ($145,551). 163
In addition, affected developers can select up to three incentives including an increase in density
bonus, no residential minimum parking requirement, reduction in non-residential parking
requirement, and an expedited review and approval process, among others.
Though DeKalb County does not currently have an inclusionary zoning ordinance, its 2035
Comprehensive Plan calls for the creation of an inclusionary zoning policy as part of its housing
strategy and the county’s Supplemental Policy Guidelines support a Workforce Housing Density
Bonus for new developments when at least 20 percent of the total housing units are reserved for
households with incomes between 61 and 105 percent of the median income for the Atlanta metro
area. In return, the project’s developer is permitted to increase the density of the development. 164
The county’s comprehensive plan also provides provisions through its small area plan policies for a
voluntary inclusionary zoning policy in the Belvedere Activity Center. The policy allows density
bonuses in mixed income housing developments when the developer agrees to set aside a percentage
of housing units as affordable units for families with income at or below 80 percent of the area
median income. 165
The county’s development authority considers several factors in making its recommendations to the
County Board of Commissioners regarding the provision of tax incentives to support significant
projects that promote the county’s economic development goals. Among those pertaining to

161Brittany Wong, Willow Lung-Amam, and Gerrit Knaap, “Moderately Priced Dwelling Units: Montgomery
County, Maryland’s Model of Inclusionary Housing,” Working Paper WP21BW1, Cambridge, MA: Lincold
Institute of Land Policy, May 2021.
City of Annapolis, Office of Community Development, Moderately Priced Dwelling Units (MPDU), Retried
162

March 13, 2022.

163Josh Green, “Making Sense of Atlanta’s New Affordable Housing Rules,” Atlanta Curbed, 5 February 2018.
Available at https://atlanta.curbed.com/2018/2/5/16973966/atlanta-affordable-housing-beltline-inclusionary-
zoning.
DeKalb County Department of Planning and Sustainability, DeKalb County Comprehensive Plan 2035,
164

Chapter 8, Implementation, p. 117.

165 Ibid., Chapter 7, Land Use, p. 102.

141
community benefits is “a set aside of multifamily housing for low- and moderate-income or for
workforce housing—a minimum reservation of 10 percent of units for residents with family income
not exceeding 80 percent of the DeKalb area median income is expected.” 166
The cities of Brookhaven and Decatur in DeKalb have both adopted inclusionary zoning ordinances.
The Brookhaven city council adopted a citywide inclusionary zoning ordinance in November 2018.
The ordinance requires 10 percent of the residential units in an area receiving a special land use
permit or rezoning of a property for multi-unit residential housing to be set aside for workforce
housing, defined as households earning less than 80 percent of the area median income. 167 The
Decatur ordinance, passed in July 2020, requires developers to set aside 10 percent of new
apartments or single-family homes for households earning less than 80 percent of the area median
income. 168
Gwinnett County commissioners are currently studying revisions to its policies and programs related
to affordable housing based on a recently completed housing study and a residential zoning study.
Among the options being considered is the creation of an inclusionary zoning ordinance that would
require developers seeking zoning approval for their residential projects to include affordable
housing. 169
Prince George’s County had adopted an inclusionary zoning ordinance in 1991 but terminated the
ordinance in1996. One of the recommendations of the county’s recently completed comprehensive
housing strategy was a “cross-cutting action strategy” to “establish stronger, market-informed
inclusionary zoning requirements.” 170 Subsequent consideration of a revised inclusionary zoning
ordinance that would apply to developments around Metro stations serving a new light rail line was
dropped as county officials determined “inclusionary zoning policy is not feasible at this time based
on market conditions and current County policies.” 171

Low Income Housing Tax Credits

The Low Income Housing Tax Credit is the primary federal program used to develop affordable
rental housing. It was created by the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which provided a new tool for state
housing agencies to incentivize the creation of affordable rental housing. State agencies review
LIHTC applications submitted by private and nonprofit developers and allocate the tax credits based
on the state’s priorities for meeting its state and local affordable housing needs (e.g., acquisition, new
construction, rehabilitation, target income group, geographic location, etc.). The private and
nonprofit developers, in turn, sell the tax credits to private investors (to reduce their federal tax

Decide DeKalb Development Authority, “Policy Guidelines for Property Tax Incentives to Encourage
166

Economic Development,” September 8, 2016.

167 Dyana Bagby, “Affordable Housing, Short-Term Rental Regs Included in Brookhaven’s New Zoning Code,”

Reporter Newspapers and Atlanta Intown, November 28, 2018

J.D. Capelouto, “How Can Decatur Fix its Affordable Housing Problem?” The Atlanta-Journal Constitution,
168

August 20, 2020.

169Curt Yeomans, “Gwinnett leaders developing policy that could open door to affordable housing requirements
for proposed developments,” Gwinnett Daily Post, December 19, 2021.
170Enterprise Community Partners, Inc., Housing Opportunity for All: Comprehensive Housing Strategy,
Prince George’s County, MD, September 2018.
HR&A and Enterprise, Prince George’s County Purple Line Inclusionary Zoning Study, Final Report,
171

December 2020, p. 7.

142
liability) on a dollar-for-dollar basis in exchange for financing that is used to support their rental
housing development. 172
There are two types of LIHTC subsidies available, depending on the proportion of the low-income
units included in the project (20 or 40 percent) and the income level of the tenants to whom the
developer is committing to rent a unit (at or below 50 or 60 percent of area median income). The
actual value of the tax credits to a developer is dependent on several factors: the developer’s equity
investment, the percentage of low-income units included in the project, and type of project
(acquisition/rehabilitation, new construction, or rehabilitation of a developer-owned property). Once
the project is completed, developers must agree to the rental restrictions for a period of 15 years. At
the end of this period, the developer may sell the property or enter into an extended use period of at
least 15 years, though the terms and conditions of affordable housing may be different from the
original term. Investors receive the tax credits on an annual basis, generally over a 10-year period.
According to HUD, the LIHTC program
provides the equivalent of nearly $8 billion in
annual budget authority to state agencies for
Tenants in LIHTC projects affordable housing. HUD reports than an
tend to have higher incomes average of over 1,400 housing projects and
106,000 units of affordable rental housing
than households that receive were placed into service annually between
assistance through other 1995 and 2018. 173

federal housing programs Based on one study that relied on tenant-level

data on LIHTC projects in 16 states, the
such as housing choice Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban
Policy at New York University found that
vouchers or public housing. tenants of LIHTC projects tend to have higher
According to one study, 43 incomes than households that receive
assistance through other federal housing
percent of LIHTC tenants programs such as housing choice vouchers or
had incomes less than 30 public housing. The study found that 43
percent of assisted households in LIHTC
percent of area median projects had extremely low income (less than
30% of AMI), and 62 percent of LIHTC tenants
income compared to 75 had household income at or below 40% of AMI,
percent of the tenants in rates greater than expected under LIHTC
program rules which call for 20 percent of
HUD’s public housing and tenants at or below 50% AMI or 40% of
housing choice voucher tenants at or below 60 percent of AMI. By
contrast, roughly 75 percent of the tenants in
programs. HUD’s public housing and housing choice
voucher programs are extremely low income
households. About one-third (32%) of LIHTC
households had income between 41 and 60

Ed Gramlich, Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program, Washington, DC: National Low Income Housing
172

Coalition.
173U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, Low-
Income Housing Tax Credits.

143
percent of AMI and seven percent of LIHTC households had incomes at 61 percent of AMI or
higher. 174
The study also found that almost seven out of ten of the extremely low income LIHTC households
received some other type of assistance, such as a housing voucher. For those LIHTC tenants without
other rental assistance, however, more than half were severely cost burdened (i.e., paid more than
50% of their household income for housing), which the study noted shows that “on its own though,
this tool does not reach a significant number of extremely low-income households without those
households experiencing rent burdens.” 175
Comparison Counties. Table 17 shows that all 11 counties included in the analysis have LIHTC
projects. The share of assisted housing units in the counties with LIHTC subsidies ranges from about
one-third in Jefferson County (30%) to more than 75 percent in DeKalb (84%), Clayton (86%), Cobb
(89%), Fulton (76%), and Fort Bend (93%) counties. Note that the actual number of LIHTC units
varies widely, from less than 3,000 in Fort Bend and Anne Arundel counties to more than 10,000 in
DeKalb and Fulton counties. 176
In 2001, the Baltimore Regional Housing Campaign, a coalition of local fair housing advocates, filed
a complaint with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, that alleged the
Maryland housing finance agency’s policy for distributing LIHTC effectively targeted low-income
housing developments in predominantly Black neighborhoods as it deferred to county and municipal
governments, allowing them to reject proposals from developers for low-income housing in their
jurisdictions. The complaint “claimed that suburban resistance to development of low-income
housing in White areas led to a disproportionate concentration in poor Black neighborhoods,
particularly in Baltimore City…The complaint called the local veto an ‘institutional mechanism for
local NIMBY opposition to LIHTC housing without regard to the worthiness of the project.” 177 Under
the terms of the settlement, the state has agreed to “help finance the development of at least 1,500
low-income housing units across Baltimore City and Harford, Howard, Carroll, Anne Arundel, and
Baltimore counties.” 178
A similar practice was found in Texas, where an analysis by Texas Housers found that letters of
opposition to proposed LIHTC-assisted low income housing developments submitted by Texas state
legislators “had the effect of encouraging Texas to build affordable housing in lower-income areas of
the state. The analysis found that all the proposed projects receiving opposition letters from state
officials concerned developments in the greater Houston region. 179
A recent report by the Poverty and Race Research Action Council (PRRAC) found that a few states
have adopted policies in their LIHTC Qualified Allocation Plans to use their tax credits to promote

174“What Can We Learn about the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program by Looking at the Tenants,” New
York University: Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy and Moelis Institute for Affordable Housing
Policy, October 2012.
175 Ibid., p. 7.
176 These counts and percentages are based on projects that are solely supported by LIHTC and excludes LIHTC

subsidies that are part of subsidized developments that include multiple subsidies. The actual number of
LIHTC subsidies in the study counties would be higher if we also included LIHTC units associated with projects
with multiple subsidies.
Lawrence Lanahan, “A Significant Victory: State Settles Maryland Housing Discrimination Complaint,
177

Hundreds of Affordable Homes Promised,” City Paper, October 11, 2017.

178 Ibid.
179 Kevin Jewell, “Effect of Elected Official Letters on the 2011 LIHTC Round,” Texas Housers, July 1, 2011.

144
the deconcentration of subsidized housing by reducing segregation and encouraging the development
of affordable housing in opportunity areas. These states include Massachusetts, North Carolina, and
Pennsylvania. The report adds that other states, such as Texas and New Jersey, have QAP
provisions that encourage deconcentration such as the distance between tax credit properties and the
percentage of tax credit properties in a particular area. North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Utah
have similar deconcentration provisions at the project level, and Maine, Tennessee, and Ohio also
include incentives for locating LIHTC projects
in “economically diverse” communities. A few
states (Illinois, New Jersey, Pennsylvania) set
The share of assisted housing aside a certain portion of their LIHTC
allocations for projects in suburban areas. 180
units in the counties with
Other LIHTC best practices highlighted in the
LIHTC subsidies ranges from PRRAC report included using the tax credits to
less than half in Jefferson contribute to a comprehensive community
revitalization plan; nearly half the states have
County (30%) to more than point systems for project selection that favor
75 percent in DeKalb (84%), developments in these areas. Nebraska, for
example, sets aside up to 33 percent of its tax
Clayton (86%), Cobb (89%), credit allocation to support projections that are
part of a comprehensive neighborhood
Fulton (76%), and Fort Bend development that includes “a significant and
(93%) counties. material public investment.”
Georgia’s QAP, according to the report,
received “strong positive scores for its project
scoring that encourages development in high opportunity areas, its mandatory requirements
ensuring affirmatively marketing the developed project, and its provisions for affirmatively
furthering fair housing. 181

Housing Finance Authorities

Housing finance agencies (HFAs) first appeared in the 1960s at the state level as a means to promote
home ownership. Following the leads of Pennsylvania and New York, about a dozen states, primarily
in the northeast and Midwest, had created state housing finance agencies during the 1960s. 182 State
housing finance agencies issue tax-exempt bonds and use the proceeds to offer below market interest
rates to qualified low- and moderate-income first-time homebuyers. HFAs have also been
instrumental in developing affordable multi-family housing, a role that was expanded by the
Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, which under Section 236 allowed multifamily
developments financed under a state or local program to qualify for a new type of federal housing
assistance—federal mortgage insurance combined with interest subsidies. Changes to federal tax
laws and court rulings further expanded housing finance agencies. The central issue under
contention was whether housing constituted a public or private purpose and the courts eventually

180Sarah Oppenheimer, Megan Haberle, Etienne Toussaint, and Philip Tegeler, Building Opportunity II: Civil
Rights Best Practices in the Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program (2015 Update), Washington, DC: Poverty
and Race Research Action Council, July 2015, pp. 2-4.
181 Ibid., pp. 12-15.
182National Council of State Housing Agencies, At the Center of Affordable Housing Finance of State Housing
Finance Agencies, Washington, DC: NCSHA, September 2021, p. 4.

145
ruled that housing was a public purpose and therefore one for which public funds could be
appropriated. 183
The issue, however, remained a contentious one, particularly in Congress, where several tax bills
that passed in the 1980s limited the eligibility of buyers, their incomes, and the price of homes that
could be purchased with bond-financed mortgages. Multi-family housing was also hard hit as the Tax
Reform Act of 1986 limited the use of HFA multifamily financing, which declined from about $5
billion annually in the years preceding the act to less than $500 million by 1987. The act did,
however, introduce a new federal policy instrument for financing multi-family housing, the Low
Income Housing Tax Credit, and gave states control over administering the credit. 184
The devolution of increased responsibility to state and local governments for addressing the
affordable housing problem continued in the 1990s. Of note was the Federal Housing
Administration’s decision to share lending risk with housing finance agencies to expedite the speed
and scale of multifamily mortgage lending: FHA would provide full insurance on the loans while the
HFAs would accept 90 percent of the risk of default on the loans.
State housing finance agencies were largely immune from the housing finance crisis that defined the
2000s as the agencies did not issue subprime mortgages. One study that reviewed more than one
million Fannie Mae loans to low- and moderate-income buyers between 2005 and 2014 (about 10
percent were issued by HFAs) found that HFA loans were less likely to experience a long-term
default and less likely to be foreclosed. 185 State HFAs, however, were substantially impacted by a
series of housing finance reforms and market responses, particularly the sharp drop in conventional
mortgage interest rates, which essentially erased any interest rate advantage HFA financing could
provide. Nonetheless, HFAs continued to be an important source of affordable housing finance as
they provided more than $100 billion for homeownership and $48 billion for multifamily housing
during the 2000s. 186
State HFAs were a critical element in the federal government’s response to the Great Recession. The
Obama administration’s Troubled Assets Relief Program distributed $9.6 billion to State HFAs in 18
states to assist economically vulnerable homeowners through mortgage modifications. According to
the National Council of State Housing Agencies, HFAs have emerged through several tumultuous
decades as “as an integral part of the US housing finance system that serves those whom the purely
private sector can’t or won’t—a group whose numbers were rising before the coronavirus pandemic
and have increased further because of it.” 187 Today, in addition to their own state-funded activities,
state HFAs are deeply involved in the administration of federal housing initiatives: 48 states
administer the Low Income Housing Tax Credit and more than three-fourths of the states are
administering the HOME housing block grant, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Homeowner
Assistance Fund, the Housing Trust Fund, and HUD’s Project-Based Section 8 program. As of 2019,
state HFAs cumulatively have provided more than $160 billion in rental financing and produced
more than 1.2 million units; nearly $450 billion in homeownership financing has also been provided,
which served nearly four million homeowners. 188

183 Ibid., p. 5.
184 Ibid., pp. 6-9.
185 Ibid., p. 12.
186 Ibid., p. 13.
187 Ibid., p. 18.
188 Ibid., pp. 19-20.

146
Local governments, particularly larger cities, have also established local housing finance agencies,
sometimes called residential finance authorities, modelled after state housing finance agencies.
These agencies are like their state counterparts in that they provide support for single- and multi-
family housing, primarily through the issuance of revenue bonds to support the development of
affordable housing for low-, moderate-, and middle-income households. Most have programs that
include financial assistance for first-time homebuyers (low-interest, fixed-rate mortgages, assistance
with down payment and closing costs) as well as low-interest loans and gap financing to developers
of multi-family housing.
Comparison Counties. In Georgia, Atlanta
is the only general purpose local government
Many local governments have that has established a local housing finance
authority, the Urban Residential Finance
established local housing Authority, which is a component of Atlanta’s
development authority, Invest Atlanta. Its
finance agencies that provide primary housing programs include homebuyer
support for single- and multi- assistance and multifamily gap financing.
Nearly 1,400 new homebuyers have received
family housing, primarily assistance from Invest Atlanta through its
through the issuance of educational and down payment assistance
programs since 2010. In 2021, more than
revenue bonds to support the 1,900 affordable housing units were created or
preserved throughout the city with assistance
development of affordable from Invest Atlanta. 189
housing for low-, moderate-, Overall, the city committed in 2019 to create
and middle-income or preserve 20,000 units of affordable housing
by the year 2026 and invest $1 billion in
households. Most have public, private, and philanthropic funds as
programs that include part of its Housing Affordability Action
Plan. 190 In December 2020, Mayor Bottoms
financial assistance for first- signed an executive order authorizing the
Urban Residential Finance Authority to issue
time homebuyers as well as $50 million in taxable revenue bonds and
low-interest loans and gap authorized an additional $100 million in
housing bonds to be subsequently issued to
financing to developers of support the city’s goal of creating or
preserving 20,000 affordable homes by 2026. 191
multi-family housing. Since January 2018, the city and its partners
have created or preserved almost 8,000
affordable housing units and committed more
than $700 million for affordable housing. 192

189 Invest Atlanta, 2021 Annual Report, p. 42.

190 One Atlanta: Housing Affordability Action Plan, Atlanta, GA: City of Atlanta, Office of the Mayor,
191 City of Atlanta, Office of the Mayor, Executive Order 2020-184, December 8, 2020.
192In addition to the city of Atlanta, primary partners include Atlanta Beltline Inc., the Housing Authority of
the City of Atlanta, Invest Atlanta, and the Fulton County/City of Atlanta Land Bank Authority. City of Atlanta
Housing Affordability Tracker, accessed February 27, 2022.

147
Gwinnett County commissioners are currently studying revisions to its policies and programs related
to affordable housing based on a recently completed housing study and a residential zoning study.
Among the options being considered is providing authority to the Gwinnett Housing Corporation, a
nonprofit housing corporation that serves as the county’s public housing authority, to issue $50
million in housing bonds to assist in the construction of affordable housing units; these funds in turn
could be leveraged, according to GHC’s executive director, to “leverage $600 million to build
thousands of affordable housing units.” 193
The only study counties with housing or residential finance authorities are Polk, Volusia, and Fort
Bend counties. The Polk County Housing Finance Authority, created in 1978, uses revenue bonds,
refunding bonds, and other debt obligations to leverage public-private investments for the new
construction or rehabilitation of affordable housing projects. The HFA also provides first time home
buyers with up to $7,500 toward their down payment and closing costs. 194
The Volusia County Housing Finance Authority, created in 1981, issues tax-exempt and/or taxable
bonds to support the construction and permanent financing of rental housing developments that
include 40 percent or more of the rental units that are affordable to households with incomes at or
below 60 percent of the area median income; 20 percent or more of the developed units must be
affordable to households with incomes at or below 50 percent of the area median income. 195
The Fort Bend Housing Finance Corporation, created in 1980, provides two programs to assist
qualified low and moderate-income homebuyers. The Down Payment Assistance Program offers a
$2,000 grant to assist with down payment and closing costs and the Mortgage Credit Certificate
Program provides an annual tax credit based on 35 percent of the interest paid each year on a
family’s mortgage. Currently, HFC has fully committed its funds for downpayment assistance and
the program is not accepting new applications.
In addition to housing or residential finance authorities, local housing authorities, pursuant to State
and Federal law, can issue tax exempt and taxable bonds to finance both single-family and multi-
family housing. Developers receiving bond financing are required to include a percentage of the
developed residential units as affordable units to individuals or families with income below the
areawide median income. In calendar year 2020, the most recent year for which debt issuance
reporting is available from the Georgia Department of Community Affairs, three county housing
authorities in metro Atlanta issued bonds for multi-family housing: Clayton County ($16 million),
DeKalb County ($54 million), and Gwinnett County ($25 million).
The Housing Authority of DeKalb County will provide bond financing for multi-family developments
that provide low- and moderate-income set asides based on the date of bond issuance. Current
projects require a minimum of 40 percent of units to be set aside for households earning less than 60
percent of AMI or 20 percent of units set aside for households with income below 50 percent of
AMI. 196

193Curt Yeomans, “Gwinnett leaders developing policy that could open door to affordable housing requirements
for proposed developments,” Gwinnett Daily Post, December 19, 2021.
194 Polk County Housing Finance Authority, Retrieved March 13, 2022.
195 Volusia County Housing Finance Authority, Retrieved March 13, 2022.
196If the bonds are issued before August 15, 1986 are required to set aside 20 percent of the units for low and
moderate income tenants (less than 80% AMI); bonds issued after August 15, 1986 require 40 percent of units to
be set aside for households earning less than 60 percent of AMI or 20 percent of units to be set aside for
households with income below 50 percent of AMI. If the project is owned and operated pursuant to Section
501(c)(3) of the code, then 75 percent of the units are required to be set aside for households with income less

148
Workforce Housing
Workforce housing first began to appear in the early 2000s and generally referred to the need for
housing for teachers, police officers, fire fighters, emergency service workers, and nurses, among
others, to live affordably in the communities where they worked. Though definitions varied widely
from community to community, the income of these workers generally ranges between 60 and 120
percent of the areawide median income, and in some communities, go as high as 150 percent of AMI.
Workers in these occupations generally did not qualify for any direct housing assistance as most
federal programs cut off assistance at 60 percent of AMI and there were few state or local programs
that provided housing assistance to households earning above that threshold.
In addition, many affordable housing advocates also began to use the term workforce housing as a
replacement for affordable housing because the latter term would likely be less controversial in
communities that had traditionally resisted affordable housing out of concerns it would bring crime
to their communities or reduce housing values. 197 Thus, in some communities the term workforce
housing is used exclusively, although the focus in on the provision of affordable housing for
households at the upper end of the AMI scale (60-120%).

Definitions of workforce housing vary widely with the income

of targeted workers generally in the range between 60 and
120 percent of the areawide median income, and in some
communities, go as high as 150 percent of AMI. Workers in
these occupations generally did not qualify for any direct
housing assistance as most federal programs cut off
assistance at 60 percent of AMI and there are few state or
local programs that provide housing assistance to households
earning above that threshold.

Within the past few years, several states have created housing finance programs exclusively targeted
to increasing the supply of workforce housing in their communities. For example, the Iowa Finance
Authority provides financial assistance in the form of a repayable loan to cities and counties with a
demonstrated need for additional workforce rental housing. The maximum loan amount is $1 million
or $50,000 per assisted workforce housing rental unit. Rents must be affordable to households
earning at or below 140 percent of the AMI. Program income in the form of loan repayments to the

than 80% of the areawide median income and 20% of the units will be set aside for households with very low
income (less than 50% areawide median come). Housing Authority of DeKalb County, Multifamily Bond Loan
Program Application
197 See Miriam Axel-Lute, “Workforce Housing is an Insulting Term,” Shelterforce, October 6, 2014 and Tiffany

Manuel and Nat Kendall-Taylor, “You Don’t Have to Live Here: Why Housing Messages Are Backfiring and 10
Things We Can Do About It,” Enterprise Community Partners and Frameworks, Inc., October 2016.

149
recipient local government must either be retained to assist additional workforce housing
development or returned to the IFA. 198
The Massachusetts Home Finance Agency recently announced the commitment of $100 million of its
own resources for a Workforce Housing Initiative to assist multifamily developers across the state in
the construction of new rental housing where some of the units are reserved for households earning
between 61 and 120 percent of the AMI. The workforce housing units must remain affordable for at
least 30 years. In addition, at least 20 percent of the units in the development must be affordable to
households earning at or below 80% of AMI. The initiative also sets aside $25 million for
“transformative projects,” that feature workforce housing development on state-owned land and/or
feature transit-oriented development. 199
In Minnesota, the state’s Workforce Housing Development grant program, previously a pilot
program through the Department of Economic Development and now a permanent program of the
state’s housing finance agency, provides mid-sized cities with financial assistance to construct
workforce rental housing where a shortage of rental housing makes it difficult for businesses to
attract the workers they need. The state also created during its 2017 legislative session a new
Workforce Housing Tax Increment Financing tool to support cities in creating workforce housing
where needed to serve employees in the municipality or surrounding area where employers have
acknowledged “the lack of available rental housing has impeded the ability of the business to recruit
and hire employees.” 200
Comparison Counties. As shown in Table 17, about half of the counties have taken some specific
action to encourage the development of workforce housing in their jurisdictions and two more are
actively considering a workforce housing initiative. Prince George’s County allocated $2.6 million in
county funds through its Housing Trust Fund in 2017 to create the Workforce Housing Gap
Financing Program, which provides financing to support the development of mixed income
communities that include “decent and quality workforce housing.” The other counties have generally
used density bonuses, the waiver of impact fees, or other development incentives to support new
workforce housing.
Anne Arundel County recently passed workforce housing legislation that revised the county’s zoning
policies to permit multi-family housing with a density up to 22 units per acre in residential areas
currently zoned as R-10 or R-15. To qualify for the density bonus, developments must service
households earning at or below 120 percent of AMI. The county will also waive impact fees for new
housing that serves households at or below 120 percent of AMI and that is developed by nonprofit
organizations. 201 Polk County will waive up to 50% of the impact fees for developments that include
workforce housing. In 2007, Volusia County authorized a study to develop a proposed workforce
housing ordinance although the county has yet to take any action on the proposed ordinance.
In the early 2000s, Cobb Housing, Inc., a developer, six builders and more than 40 subcontractors
came together to build an entire subdivision—31 homes--that was entirely for workforce housing.
The homes in the Mitchell Chase subdivision, with $150,000 price tags, were geared toward
households earning at or below 80 percent of AMI, about $70,000 at that time, with preference for

198 Iowa Finance Authority, Workforce Housing Loan Program.

199 MassHousing, Workforce Housing Initiative.
200 League of Minnesota Cities, “Focus on New Laws: New Workforce Housing Tools,” September 25, 2017.
Arundel Community Development Services, Inc., Anne Arundel County Annual Action Plan: Local Fiscal
201

Year 2018, p. 65.

150
fire fighters, police officers, teachers, nurses, and others who work in the community. Those who
qualified to purchase homes also received down payment and closing cost assistance. 202
Under Cobb County’s redevelopment overlay district regulations, 10 percent of new residential units
must be designated as workforce housing, defined as housing affordable to households with income
at or below 80 percent of AMI. The county is currently considering an amendment to its official code
that will permit a density bonus to encourage the development of for-sale workforce housing in
single-family detached residential developments that serve households earning between 60 and 120
percent of the AMI. 203
Clayton County’s comprehensive development plan calls for the development of workforce housing in
the “Jonesmorrow” area that includes a stretch of industrial and commercial uses along an arterial
highway between Jonesboro and Morrow the county is hoping to turn into a mixed use area of
commercial, industrial, and residential uses, including workforce housing.
Fulton County does not currently have any specific policies or incentives for workforce housing and
has been recently criticized by Atlanta officials for providing public subsidies through its economic
development authority for luxury housing in select Atlanta neighborhoods. Former Atlanta mayor
Kasim Reed encouraged Fulton County to follow the city’s lead and adopt a policy requiring
developers that receive public funds or incentives to include affordable housing in their
developments. A new ordinance adopted by the city of Atlanta that took effect on July 1, 2016,
requires a specific set aside of housing units in any residential development that receives any public
assistance (grant, incentive, subsidy or other funding) from the city of Atlanta or any economic
development authority operating in the city. Developers receiving public assistance have two options
to ensure the provision of affordable housing: 15 percent of all residential units in the development
are affordable to households at or below 80 percent of AMI or 10 percent of residential units are
affordable to households at or below 60 percent of AMI. 204
A proposed Workforce Housing Ordinance for DeKalb County was drafted in 2010 that would provide
a more consistent definition of workforce housing and authorize a broader set of incentives to
encourage the development of workforce housing in the county. The draft ordinance defines
workforce housing as housing that is affordable to households earning between 60 and 125 percent of
the county’s median household income in areas in or near the county’s employment centers, activity
centers, and job clusters. The primary incentive provided in the proposed ordinance is a density
bonus for developments with at least 30 housing units. In addition, the ordinance would require
residential developments within a tax allocation district that receive bond financing or other funds
from the district to designate at least 15 percent of the proposed residential units as workforce
housing; they would also qualify for the density bonus. Residential developments in a county
enterprise zone that receive tax exemptions or tax abatements would also be required to set aside 15
percent of the residential units as workforce housing and qualify for the density bonus. 205
DeKalb County currently provides a density bonus for workforce for-sale housing in its zoning
ordinance that defines workforce housing as “for-sale housing that is affordable to those households
earning eighty (80) percent of median household income for the Atlanta Metropolitan Statistical

202Aixa M. Pascual, “The Price is Right in Cobb: New Homes Affordable for the Local Work Force,” Atlanta
Journal-Constitution, July 4, 2005.
203 Cobb County Board of Commissioner, 2018 Code Amendments, Part I, Package I, January 4, 2018.
204 Invest Atlanta, Press Release: New Affordable Housing Policy, July 21, 2016.
205Livable Communities Coalition of Metro Atlanta and Perkins + Will, A New Roadmap for Workforce Housing
in DeKalb County, July 2010, pp. 58-59.

151
Area (MSA) as determined by the current fiscal year HUD income limit table at the time the
building is built.” 2068The City of Tucker’s regulations for the Downtown Tucker Overlay District
permits a density bonus of one additional story in single-family and live/work units if 20 percent of
the total residential units in a development of 15 or more units are priced for workforce housing. A
density bonus of one additional story in mixed-use buildings is permitted if 20 percent of the total
number of residential units in a development of 20 or more units are priced for workforce housing. 207
The supplemental policy guidelines in place for the implementation of the county’s 2035
Comprehensive Plan provide a density bonus for workforce housing, though the conditions to qualify
for the density bonus are confusing. The guidelines state that at least 20 percent of the housing units
in projects using the Workforce Housing Density Bonus “must be reserved for households between
61% and 105% of median income for the Atlanta metropolitan area.” However, the workforce housing
definition provided offers a different definition: “for-sale housing that is affordable to those
households earning eighty (80) percent of median income for the Atlanta Metropolitan Statistical
Area (MSA) as determined by the current fiscal year HUD income limit table at the time the
building is built.” 208
Currently, the DeKalb County Chamber of Commerce and the Decide DeKalb Development
Authority offer the WE (Workforce Enhancement) DeKalb housing initiative, which provides
homeownership opportunities to employees of DeKalb County businesses considering relocation to or
currently residing in the county. The program offers qualified homebuyers a competitive 30-year
fixed rate mortgage and a grant that can be used for down payment and/or closing cost assistance.
The Decide DeKalb Development Authority may offer property tax incentives through bond-lease
transactions for projects its board of directors deem “to be worthy and appropriate to achieve its
economic development purposes.” Among the factors Decide DeKalb takes into consideration is the
community benefit of the proposed project which may include a minimum set-aside of 10 percent of
the multifamily housing for low- and moderate-income households or for workforce housing that are
affordable to households “not exceeding 80 percent of the DeKalb area median income.” 209
Polk County provides a partial waiver of impact fees for new residential single-family workforce
housing affordable to families between 80 and 120 percent of the area median icome if homebuyers
remain in their home for seven years.
Anne Arundel County provides density bonuses and a waiver of impact fees for residential
development that provide workforce housing, defined as owner-occupied housing that is affordable to
families up to 100 percent of the area median income and renter-occupied housing affordable for
families with incomes less than 60 percent of area median income.
Prince George’s County supports workforce through county ordinance that may establish one or more
revitalization tax credit districts to provide property tax relief for residential developments providing
workforce housing defined as housing affordable to renters earning between 50 and 100 percent of
AMI and single family homes affordable to households earning between 60 and 120% of AMI.

206 DeKalb County Zoning Code Ordinance—Full Ordinance, Article 9, Definitions, November 2017, p. 9-38.
207 City of Tucker, Code of Ordinances, Chapter 46, Zoning, Article III, Special and Overlay District Regulations.
208 DeKalb County Comprehensive Plan 2035, Chapter 8 Implementation, Supplemental Policy Guidelines,

Workforce Housing Density Bonus, p. 117.

Decide DeKalb Development Authority, “Policy Guidelines for Property Tax Incentives to Encourage
209

Economic Development,” September 8, 2016, p. 3.

152
 Housing Preservation Strategies
In this section we review county adoption of several strategies designed to preserve the availability
of affordable housing. These include rent control, code enforcement, grants for housing
rehabilitation, land banks, the preservation of housing developments with federal subsidies, and tax
relief (Table 18).

Rent Control
Rent control strategies were most widely used between the late 1960s and early 1980s, particularly
in communities with very tight housing markets. According to PolicyLink, the primary purpose of
rent control (or rent stabilization) is to “protect tenants in privately owned residential properties
from excessive rent increases by mandating reasonable and gradual rent increases, while at the
same time ensuring that landlords receive a fair return on their investment.” 210 Rent control began
to fall out of fashion in many communities during the anti-regulatory era of the 1980s and early
1990s. PolicyLink estimated that the number of jurisdictions with rent control declined from about
175 in the early 1980s to about 140 in the early 2000s. According to the National Apartment
Association, “only the District of Columbia, New York, and Oregon along with cities and towns in
California, New Jersey, and Maryland have rent control or rent stabilization policies in place.” 211
Thirty-six states (including Georgia) have laws that prohibit rent control. 212
As rents have recently soared across the country, many jurisdictions have begun to revisit rent
control as an affordable housing strategy. For example, last Fall voters in Minneapolis and St. Paul
approved a ballot initiative to allow their cities to cap rent increases as did voters in Santa Ana,
California. Boston is currently considering restoring rent control. 213
As the Urban Institute’s Peter Tatian observed, “a scan of the research literature revealed very little
evidence that rent control is a good policy.” He points out that “rent stabilization doesn’t do a good
job of protecting its intended beneficiaries—poor or vulnerable renters—because the targeting of the
benefits is very haphazard.” Citing a study of rent control in Cambridge, Massachusetts, Tatian adds
that “the poor, the elderly, and families—the three major groups targeted for benefits of rent
control—were no more likely to be found in controlled than uncontrolled units.” 214
A more recent review of the literature offers a more positive assessment of the main conclusions of
rent control studies: “[F]irst, that rent regulation is effective in limiting rent increases, although how
effective it is depends on the specifics of the law . . . Second, there is no evidence that rent
regulations reduce the overall supply of housing. They may, however, reduce the supply of rental
housing if it is easy for landlords to convert apartments to condominiums or other non-rental uses.
Third, . . . rent regulations also play an important role in promoting neighborhood stability and
protecting long-term tenants.” 215

“Rent Control,” PolicyLink, http://www.policylink.org/sites/default/files/rent-control.pdf. Quoted in Levy et al,

210

“Keeping the Neighborhood Affordable,” p. 15.

211 Ibid.
212 National Apartment Association, Rent Regulation, accessed February 24, 2022.
Katy O’Donnell and Lisa Kashinsky, “Renters Strike Back as Cities Cap Price Hikes by Landlords,” Politico,
213

November 26, 2021.

Peter A. Tatian, “Is Rent Control Good Policy?” Urban Wire: Housing and Housing Finance, Washington, DC:
214

The Urban Institute, January 2, 2013. Available at https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/rent-control-good-policy.

J.W. Mason, “Considerations on Rent Control,” Testimony before the Jersey City city council on rent control,”
215

November 14, 2019.

153
Table 18 shows that only one of the 11 counties included in the analysis had any experience with
rent control. One of the municipalities in Anne Arundel County (College Park) adopted a rent
control/stabilization ordinance in 2005, though the city council voted to end the practice in
September 2014.

Short Term Rentals

The rapid growth of home sharing and short-term rentals (STRs) through web-based platforms such
as Airbnb and VRBO has generated intense public debate concerning their effects on local housing
markets. Opponents claim that short-term rentals provide strong incentives for landlords to shift
their focus from long-term rentals, which benefit local residents, to short-term rentals which
primarily serve non-residents and bid up the price of long-term rentals due to these units being
taken out of the long-term rental stock. Several recent studies have provided empirical support to
these claims, showing a causal effect between increases in short-term rentals and housing prices and
rental rates. 216
For example, a recent study reported in the Harvard Business Review examined the effect of Airbnb
listings between 2012 and 2016 covering the entire United States on home prices and rents and
found that an increase in Airbnb listings was positively associated with increases in rental rates and
home prices. They concluded that Airbnb listings contribute to about one-fifth of the average annual
increase in rents and about one-seventh of the average annual increase in home prices. 217
In response to these concerns, some communities have passed laws or ordinances that ban or limit
short-term rentals. These include, among others, New York City, which prohibits renting out rooms
or a portion of the home for 30 days or less; San Francisco, which limits rentals of unhosted
properties to 90 days per year; New Orleans, which prohibits short-term rentals in the French
Quarter and the Garden District. 218
Others counter that bans on short-term rentals are inappropriate as “they violate property rights,
preventing people from using their homes, condos, apartments, or land how they see fit. No one is
harmed when property owners agree to rent their space, so there is no justification for state
intervention.” 219 They also point out that overregulation of the short-term rental market is bad for
the economy as “it means less tourism, higher prices for vacationers, more inconvenient stays for
families and less capital investment into communities and into improving properties.” 220
One recent study suggests, however, that in the long run, “home sharing may lead to a greater
investment in residential housing” and argues that “we might see an increase in [the] supply of
housing units that can be flexibly allocated to both long- and short-term rental markets.” 221 Their

216For a review of these studies see Ron Bekkerman et al, “The Effect of Short-Term Rentals on Residential
Investment,” SSRN, August 23, 2021.
217Kyle Barron, Edward Kung, and Davide Proserpio, “Research: When Airbnb Listings in a City Increase, So
Do Rent Prices,” Harvard Business Review, April 17, 2019 and Kyle Barron, Edward Kung, and Davide
Proserpio, “The Effect of Home-Sharing on House Prices and Rents: Evidence from Airbnb,” SSRN, March 5,
2020.
218 Lea Uradu, “Which Cities Have Restrictions on Short-term Rentals?” Millionacres, May 23, 2021
219 Jarrett Skorup, “States should ban the bans on short-term rentals,” The Hill, July 31, 2021.
220 Ibid.
221 Bekkerman, p. 2.

154
Table 18. Housing Preservation Strategies by County

Short Term Preservation Grants for

Rent Code Land Banks
County Rental of Federally Tax Relief Home
Control Enforcement and Land Banking
Regulation Subsidized Housing Maintenance

County:
None Yes State: income seniors
DeKalb Regional Land and disabled
DeKalb, GA No Yes Through PHAs veterans; Yes
City of Bank
County: property value
Brookhaven: Created 2011
freeze
Yes

Yes State property tax

Clayton County Land Through City of Jonesboro exemption for low
Clayton, GA No Yes Yes Yes
Bank Authority PHA income seniors and
Created 2014 disabled veterans

State:
property tax
exemption for low
Cobb, GA No None Yes No Through PHAs income seniors and Yes
disabled veterans;
County value offset
property tax exemption
(property value freeze)

State property tax

Yes exemption for low
Metro Atlanta Land Bank income seniors and
City of
Fulton, GA No Yes Created 1994, Through PHAs disabled veterans; Yes
Atlanta
Amended 2017 County value offset
property tax exemption
(property value freeze)

No State property tax

County did create a exemption for low
Gwinnett, GA No None Yes vacant/foreclosed Through PHAs income seniors and Yes
property registry disabled veterans;
ordinance in 2012 County value offset

155
 Short Term Preservation Grants for
Rent Code Land Banks
County Rental of Federally Tax Relief Home
Control Enforcement and Land Banking
Regulation Subsidized Housing Maintenance
property tax exemption
(property value freeze)

State homestead
exemption for elderly
Yes
and disabled; County
Birmingham Land Bank
Jefferson, AL No No Yes Through PHAs homestead Yes
Authority
exemptions for low-
Created 2014
income elderly and
for disabled

State homestead
exemption for all
homeowners, service
Through city of Lakeland members, disabled,
Polk, FL No Yes Yes No Yes
PHA disabled veterans;
County exemption
for low income
seniors

State homestead
exemption for all
homeowners, service
members, disabled,
Volusia, FL No No Yes No Through PHAs Yes
disabled veterans;
County exemption
for low income
seniors

City of
State and county
College
homeowners’
Anne Arundel, MD Park: Law No Yes No Through PHAs Yes
property tax credit
sunsetted
programs
in 2014

156
 Short Term Preservation Grants for
Rent Code Land Banks
County Rental of Federally Tax Relief Home
Control Enforcement and Land Banking
Regulation Subsidized Housing Maintenance

Right-of-First Refusal
State property tax
Preservation Fund
Prince George’s MD No Yes Yes No exemption for Yes
established by county in
seniors
2021

State property tax

Through city of Rosenberg exemption for
Fort Bend TX No No Yes No Yes
PHA seniors and low
income

157
conclusions are based on an analysis of the effects of Airbnb rentals using an extensive data set
comprised of residential permits, tax records, and residential sales in 15 U.S. metro areas from 2008
to the end of 2019. The authors found that over the first year following the start of STR regulations,
Airbnb listings and residential permits declined by 11 percent; a one percent increase in Airbnb
listings was associated with a 0.769 percent increase in residential building permits. They also found
that residential permits for accessory dwelling units were 17 percent less in jurisdictions with STR
regulations as opposed to those without.
Their findings are consistent with other studies that have shown a positive relationship between
STRs and higher home prices and rental rates. For example, the authors conclude that “STR
platforms like Airbnb incentivize residential real estate investment. . . [which] can benefit cities in a
number of ways, such as providing additional tax revenues, adding to the quality and quantity of
existing housing stock, and improving neighborhood attractiveness and character.” They add that
“not all STRs come from the reallocation of the existing housing stock: some will also come from
investment in increasing housing capacity” as was the case in Los Angeles County which experienced
an increase in accessory dwelling units over the study period. The study authors point out that the
expanded housing supply should lead to increased local tax revenues, which in turn, “can then be
spent on social programs to develop affordable housing that can offset the increased housing cost
driven by STRs.” 222

There is no “one size fits all” approach to regulating short-

term rentals. Local regulation should be adapted to fit local
circumstances and policy objectives while explicitly factoring
in that any regulation is only worth the paper it is written on
if it can be enforced in a practical and cost-effective manner.
--A Practical Guide to Effectively Regulating Short-Term Rentals
on the Local Government Level

Comparison Counties. As shown in Table 18, five counties have seen their county or municipal
governments take action short-term rentals. Polk County allows short term rentals as a conditional
use in specified areas and subdivisions. Individuals or businesses that provide short term rentals are
required to obtain a business license and a business tax receipt for each rental location; individuals
renting through companies such as Airbnb, Flipkey, HomeAway, or VRBO are also required to
obtain a county local business tax receipt for each rental location. The county also provides bonus
points for development applications that do not include short term rentals.
In October 2018, Prince George’s County, adopted a Short-Term Rentals Program that established
permitting, licensing, fees, and standards for short-term rentals. The program requires an
application, notification, an initial license fee of $150, and limits short-term rentals to a maximum of
180 days per year, 90 days if the owner is not home while using the property as a short-term rental.
Units can only be advertised on county-approved rental hosting platforms, which pay an annual
licensing fee of $2,500, and owners are required to notify all homeowner associations, condominium

222 Ibid., p. 5.

158
associations and their immediate neighbors that they have applied for a short-term rental license. In
addition, all hotel taxes must be collected. 223
Clayton County adopted an ordinance regulating short-term rentals in February 2019. 224 The
ordinance requires the short-term rental unit to be located inside or adjacent to its owner’s dwelling
unit, requires the owner to hold a business license, and each unit shall be inspected and permitted.
Short-term rental units in Clayton County can be rented more than three times in a calendar year
for periods less than 30 days or one calendar month, whichever is less. 225
Though Fulton County does not currently have a short-term rental ordinance, the city of Atlanta,
passed an ordinance in March 2021 that imposes a $500 fine for loud parties, a tax of eight percent
on rentals, the same as the city’s hotel tax, as well as a $150 license fee to operate in the city, and
requires notification of short-term rental application submission to all adjacent property owners. 226
The ordinance also proposed limiting the number of short-term rentals in neighborhoods, though
that provision did not gain enough votes to pass. 227 The rules, which were set to go into effect on
September 1, 2021, were delayed until March 1, 2022, by a subsequent city council vote during July
2021. 228
In DeKalb County, the City of Brookhaven banned all short-term rentals as part of a comprehensive
zoning overhaul adopted in 2018 that also included an inclusionary zoning ordinance.
A recent guide compiled by Host Compliance LLC, based in San Francisco, points out that there is no
“one size fits all” approach to regulating short-term rentals. The guide notes that “local regulation
should be adapted to fit local circumstances and policy objectives while explicitly factoring in that
any regulation is only worth the paper it is written on if it can be enforced in a practical and cost-
effective manner.” 229 For urban communities with a shortage of affordable housing, the guide
recommends the following policy objectives as well as suggests viable regulatory strategies that could
be used to advance these objectives:
• Maximize the availability of affordable housing options by ensuring that no long-term rental
properties are converted into short-term rentals;
• Ensure that short-term rentals are taxed in the same way as traditional lodging providers to
ensure a level playing field and maintain local service jobs;
• Ensure that the city does not lose out on hotel tax revenue that could be invested in much
needed services for permanent residents;
• Minimize public safety risks and the noise, trash and parking problems often associated with
short-term rentals without creating additional work for the local police department;

223 Eng Garcia properties, LLC, “AirBnb Rules for Prince George’s County Maryland,”
224 Clayton County, Georgia, Ordinance No. 2019-22, February 5, 2019.
Clayton County, Department of Community Development, Short-Term Vacation Rentals Unit Permit
225

Checklist.
226 City of Atlanta, Department of City Planning, Short-Term Rental.
Wilborn P. Nobles III, “Atlanta City Council passes short-term rental regulations,” The Atlanta Journal-
227

Constitution, March 16, 2021.

J.D. Capelouto, “Atlanta delays new rules for Airbnb, other short-term rentals,” The Atlanta Journal-
228

Constitution, July 19, 2021. See also, City of Atlanta, Short-Term Rental ordinance.
Ulrik Binzer, “A Practical Guide to Effectively Regulating Short-Term Rentals on the Local Government
229

Level,” San Francisco: Host Compliance LLC, n.d.

159
 • Give citizens the option to utilize their properties to generate extra income from short-term
rentals as long as all of the above-mentioned policy objectives are met. 230
Viable regulatory strategies that could be pursued to advance these goals include:
• Annual permitting requirements along with a process for revoking permits from “troubled”
properties;
• Limits on the number of permits allowed in any given neighborhood;
• Adopting a permanent residency requirement for short-term rental permit holders to
discourage absentee landlords from converting long-term rental properties into short-term
rental units; and
• Limits on the number of people allowed to stay in the rental and the number of motor
vehicles they are allowed to park on or near the property. 231

Code Enforcement
Enforcement of local housing codes is a regulatory strategy used by local governments to preserve
their housing stock. The intent is to prevent housing units from falling into a state of disrepair that
they can no longer be safely inhabited. While code enforcement can be an effective housing
preservation strategy, it often requires a companion housing assistance program (e.g., rehabilitation
loans or grants) to prevent the loss of affordable units or the displacement of low-income tenants
(affordability restrictions or tenant-based rental assistance). For example, property owners
(particularly absentee landlords) may choose to “walk away” from their properties rather than pay
the fines for code violations and make the needed repairs. This in turn increases blight in the
neighborhood and may likely end in demolition of the property for health and safety reasons. Others
may choose to sell their property to a developer, who depending on market viability, may upgrade or
redevelop the property for higher-income housing.
According to the Center for Community Progress, “to be successful, a code enforcement program
must be defined broadly to weave regulation, policy, cost recovery and carrots and sticks into a
comprehensive strategy to improve communities through responsible property ownership. A
successful code enforcement system offers incentives for responsible ownership along with
disincentives or penalties for irresponsible behavior or property abandonment.” 232 These
complimentary strategies include educational resources for both residents and property owners,
financing mechanisms to encourage and subsidize repairs, and tenant-based rental assistance or
helping residents relocate when necessary. 233
A study of Richmond, Virginia, found that concentrated code enforcement in tandem with other
neighborhood stabilization strategies (e.g., CDBG- and HOME-funded investments) increased home
sales prices by 10 percent per year faster than prices in the city overall. 234 A study in Philadelphia
that examined only the effects of strategic, concentrated, code enforcement found that home sales

230 Ibid., pp. 5-6.

231 Ibid., pp. 9-14.
232Center for Community Progress, “Strategic Code Enforcement,” Available at
http://www.communityprogress.net/read-more---strategic-code-enforcement-pages-265.php.
233ChangeLab Solutions, Up to Code: Code Enforcement Strategies for Healthy Housing, 2015. Available at
http://www.changelabsolutions.org/sites/default/files/Up-tp-Code_Enforcement_Guide_FINAL-20150527.pdf.
234 John Accordino, George Galster, and Peter Tatian, The Impacts of Targeted Public and Nonprofit Investment

on Neighborhood Development: Research Based on Richmond, Virginia’s Neighborhoods in Bloom Program.

Richmond: Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, Office of Community Affairs, July 2005.

160
prices in the target neighborhoods increased by 30 percent between 2008 and 2012 compared to less
than two percent in comparable neighborhoods. The study authors noted that “these activities return
value to neighborhoods by removing blighting influences and to the city through fines, permit fees,
ncreased real estate transfer taxes and increased property tax receipts. Based on the enhanced value
of homes sold associated with blight removal…there was an additional estimated transfer tax
revenue of $2.34 million over a two-year period.” 235
Table 18 shows that all 11 counties have code enforcement programs. The extent to which these
counties couple their code enforcement strategies with related housing investments, affordability
restrictions, and/or tenant-based rental assistance will require further research.

Housing Rehabilitation Loans and Grants

Nationally, the most frequent use of Community Development Block Grant funds among entitlement
jurisdictions is housing, with 75 percent of CDBG funds used for housing ($707 million in fiscal 2021)
allocated for single- or multi-family rehabilitation programs. 236 In FY 2021 CDBG entitlement
jurisdictions spent $269 on single-family rehabilitation, $73 million on multi-family rehabilitation,
and $176 million on administration of housing rehabilitation programs; $14 million was spent for
acquisition for rehabilitation.
Many local jurisdictions have established
CDBG- and HOME-funded rehabilitation loan
All eleven counties included and/or grant programs. Grant programs are
usually reserved for very low-income
in the study allocated CDBG homeowners and/or the elderly. Loan programs
generally offer below market interest rates and
funds for single-family provide a steady stream of income for
housing rehabilitation, with jurisdictions as the loan repayments (principal
and interest) are considered program income,
the amounts and percentage which allow for additional rehabilitation loans
of total CDBG funds ranging to be made.

from about $48,000 in Table 19 reports the amount and proportion of

CDBG and HOME funds that have been
DeKalb County (1%) to more awarded in DeKalb and the 10 other study
counties to support single-family and multi-
than $1 million in Anne family housing rehabilitation. The CDBG
Arundel County (53%). Only figures report expenditures during fiscal 2019,
which are the most recent figures available.
two counties used their The HOME figures report cumulative funding
CDBG funds in fiscal 2019 to commitments made between fiscal 2011 and
fiscal 2021. All eleven counties included in the
support rental rehabilitation. study allocated CDBG funds for single-family
housing rehabilitation, with the amounts and
percentage of total CDBG funds ranging from
$9,000 in Fort Bend County (1%) to $612,000 in

The Reinvestment Fund, Strategic Property Code Enforcement and its Impacts on Surrounding Markets,”
235

Philadelphia: The Reinvestment Fund, Policy Solutions, August 2014, p. 10.

236 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Community Planning and Development,

CDBG National Expenditure Report, Entitlement Jurisdictions, FY 2021.

161
Jefferson County (14%). DeKalb County had the sixth highest CDBG allocation for single-family
housing rehabilitation ($242,000, 2%) among the 11 counties examined. Only two counties—Anne
Arundel ($172,000) and Prince George’s ($80,000) awarded CDBG funds to support rental
rehabilitation in 2019.
Seven of the 11 study counties awarded more than half of their HOME funds committed for housing
rehabilitation between 2011 and 2021 for single-family rehabilitation. Clayton, Polk, and Fort Bend
counties allocated all of their HOME funds for single-family housing rehabilitation. Four counties—
DeKalb (53%), Anne Arundel (62%), Prince George’s (67%), and Jefferson (96%)—spent more than
half of their HOME funds committed to housing rehabilitation on multi-family rehabilitation.

Preservation of Federally Subsidized Housing.

Initially, the preservation of federally-subsidized housing was largely a federal strategy. As Patricia
Roset-Zuppa pointed out in a recent review of preservation strategies in Florida, preservation
strategies were initiated in the late 1980s when federal legislation restricted prepayment of HUD-
subsidized mortgages. Prepayment rights were restored in 1996 and subsequent federal preservation
initiatives have not been sufficient to cover all at-risk units.
As a result, state and local governments have taken increased responsibility for addressing the
preservation of subsidized housing. 237 Roset-Zuppa discusses several of the major preservation
strategies that have been directed at high at-risk properties of conversion to the private market. The
first, rent restructuring, was initiated by the federal government in the late 1990s in response to
rising market rents and the pending expiration of many rental assistance contracts. The Mark-Up-
to-Market program (for for-profit owners) and the Mark-Up-to-Budget program (for nonprofit
developers) allowed for the renewal of rental assistance contracts at levels up to 150 percent of the
fair market rent for a period of five years for for-profit developers and 20 years for nonprofit
developers. The intent was to increase the cash flow from the multifamily developments to allow
developers to fund acquisition, repairs or rehabilitation, or to take on additional debt. 238
Another federal initiative, the Mark-to-Market program, which was initiated in 1997, involved a
restructuring of both the project’s rents and its debt, which in turn required the project’s owners to
renew their rental assistance contract for a 30-year term. This program was limited to properties
with above-market rents that were originally subsidized through HUD’s Section 8 New Construction
and Substantial Rehabilitation programs during the mid-1970s to early 1980s. The federal
government also provided preservation assistance in the form of an interest rate subsidy that
effectively lowers the interest rate on properties financed through HUD’s Section 236 program to one
percent, which was intended to discourage mortgage prepayment and to provide property owners
with funds that could be used to support capital improvements.
State and local governments have also provided resources to support the preservation of subsidized
housing. Roset-Zuppa notes that the most common strategy utilized was the use of Low Income
Housing Tax Credits to aid with the acquisition and rehabilitation of subsidized properties that
would be lost due to market conversion or deterioration. A 2007 report by the National Housing
Trust noted at that time that 46 states gave priority in their LIHTC allocation plans for the

237Patricia Roset-Zuppa, “Curbing the Loss of Affordable Rental Housing in Florida: A Risk Assessment
Approach,” Cornell Real Estate Review, 6 (2008), p. 64. See also, Alexander von Hoffman, “To Preserve
Affordable Housing in the United States: A Policy History,” Cambridge, MA: Harvard Joint Center for Housing
Studies, Working Paper, March 2016.
238 Curbing the Loss of Affordable Rental Housing in Florida, p. 64.

162
Table 19. CDBG Expenditures and HOME Commitments for Housing Rehabilitation/New Construction by County.
Thousands of dollars, 2011-2021

CDBG, 2019 Use of HOME Funds, 2011 - 2021

Single-family Rehab Total HOME Funds, 2011-2021 Percent of Multi-Family HOME Funds
Total Percent Percent
HOME Single- Multi- Purchase & New
County Dollars Percent Dollars Family Family Purchase New Const. Const. Rehab Other

DeKalb, GA 242 2 12,149 47 53 16 0 84 0 0

Clayton, GA 510 18 5,961 100 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cobb, GA 403 10 9,260 61 39 51 0 0 18 31

Fulton, GA 52 3 5,449 79 21 10 0 0 0 90

Gwinnett, GA 369 6 9,488 83 17 0 0 0 8 92

Jefferson, AL 612 14 3,760 4 96 0 52 46 0 3

Polk, FL 47 1 5,111 100 0 0 0 0 0 0

Volusia, FL 23 1 4,369 72 28 0 0 34 0 66

589sf 18
Anne Arundel, MD 8,308 38 62 20 30 32 3 14
172mf 5
210sf 4
Prince George's, MD 22,323 33 67 0 93 0 0 7
80mf 2
Fort Bend, TX 9 1 1,774 100 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Community Planning and Development, CDBG
National Expenditure Report, Entitlement Jurisdictions, FY 2019, and Post 2011 HOME Activities Reports, February 24, 2022.

Note: CDBG dollars are expenditures; HOME dollars are commitments.

163
preservation of subsidized housing. State and local governments have also used their own funds as
well as federal funds (e.g., CDBG, HOME) to support the preservation of affordable housing. In
addition, some state and local governments are also providing property tax relief for affordable
rental housing as an incentive to sustain affordable housing. Also, many state and local governments
have either developed their own affordable housing inventories or are utilizing the National Housing
Preservation Database to identify and assess the risk among subsidized housing developments that
are approaching the expiration of their subsidy contracts, are located in rapidly appreciating
neighborhoods where mortgage prepayment may be a viable option, or are located in declining
neighborhoods where physical deterioration or mortgage default may be likely.
One of the most innovative housing preservation strategies is The Preservation Compact, which was
launched in Cook County (Chicago, IL) in 2008 with support from the MacArthur Foundation. 239 The
Preservation Compact is a collaborative initiative that engages for-profit and non-profit developers,
tenant advocacy groups, civic groups, lenders, and federal, state, and local government agencies to
preserve the county’s affordable rental housing stock. The Preservation Compact is managed by the
Community Investment Corporation, which is a Community Development Financial Institution. The
Preservation Compact is a data-driven
approach that uses information on the county’s
rental stock to develop and deploy a variety of
One of the most innovative preservation strategies tailored to local market
housing preservation conditions. These strategies include market-
based approaches (increasing access to credit
strategies is The in weak markets and the creation of an
Opportunity Investment Fund to support the
Preservation Compact, a creation of affordable units in strong markets);
collaborative initiative that cost-based approaches (e.g., building code
relief to reduce construction/rehabilitation
engages for-profit and non- costs, property tax relief through lowered
profit developers, tenant assessments for multifamily rental properties,
and energy retrofits to reduce utility costs);
advocacy groups, civic and government financing approaches
(coordination across government agencies to
groups, lenders, and federal, preserve publicly-assisted rental housing in
state, and local government strong and weak markets). Since 2008, The
Preservation Compact, through its partners,
agencies to preserve Cook has preserved 7,000 affordable rental units
County’s (IL) affordable since 2008. 240
Comparison Counties. Only one of the 11
rental housing stock. The study counties, Prince George’s, has taken
initiative has preserved specific programmatic action to preserve its
supply of federally-subsidized housing. Though
7,000 affordable rental units Prince George’s County has the largest stock of
since 2008. affordable housing in the Washington, DC
metro area, “the interest of County officials in
adding to or even preserving the supply of
affordable housing seems particularly low,”

239 The Preservation Compact, Chicago, IL, Together We Are Changing Communities, retrieved March 5, 2022.
240 Ibid.

164
according to a report on affordable housing in the Washington metro area 241. The authors attributed
the lack of interest to the county’s serious foreclosure problem as at the height of the foreclosure
crisis (July 2010), Prince George’s had the highest foreclosure rate in Maryland and the tenth
highest rate in the nation. 242 According to the report, “nearly four years later, the problem persists,
as homeowners continue to face the threat of foreclosure, and foreclosed homes sit vacant or are sold
to investors and speculators with few ties to the community. The latter action almost certainly takes
homes out of the County’s affordable house stock, while the former creates streets and neighborhoods
blighted with abandoned homes, devaluing neighboring properties.” 243 The report concludes that
“until Prince George’s County resolves its foreclosure crisis, it seems unlikely to pursue new
affordable housing programs, and it is at risk of losing much of the affordable housing stock it
currently has.” 244
The County, through its redevelopment authority, has committed to the development and
preservation of housing near transit centers, particularly considering the recent expansion of
Washington’s regional rapid rail transit system. The Purple Line, when fully built, will have more
than half of its stations in Prince George’s County. The county’s redevelopment authority has
programs that support both the acquisition and rehabilitation of properties as well as new
construction that provide housing opportunities for low-income households. In exchange for financial
support, developers must commit to keeping their properties affordable for five to fifteen years,
depending on the amount of the award. 245
In 2013, the Prince George’s County Council established the Right of First Refusal Program as a
means for expanding the availability of affordable housing in the county. Under the program, which
was expanded to apply to all areas of the county in 2015, owners of multifamily developments of 20
units or more are required to provide written notice to the county’s Department of Housing and
Community Development of the sale after the owner enters into a contract for sale of the multifamily
property. The county is then authorized to exercise its right of first refusal and purchase the
property, or if it chooses, to assign its rights to purchase the property to a third party, such as a
nonprofit housing organization. 246
In November 2021, the county created the Right of First Refusal Preservation Fund to provide
financing for the purchase of multi-family properties to third parties that have been assigned the
county’s right of first refusal. Loans of up to $3 million may be provided for a term of up to 18 years.
The county is capitalizing the preservation fund with $15 million in Coronavirus relief funding made
available through the American Rescue Plan. 247

Land Banks
Land banks are public or nonprofit corporations created for the purpose of returning vacant,
abandoned, and tax delinquent properties into productive use. They are a primary tool used by state

241 Lovells et al, Unfilled Promises.

242 Ibid., p. 10.
243 Ibid.
244 Ibid., p. 11.
245 Ibid., p. 17
246Prince George’s County, Department of Housing and Community Development, Right of First Refusal
Program, Accessed February 24, 2022.
247Prince George’s County, Department of Housing and Community Development, Right of First Refusal
Preservation Fund, November 30, 2021.

165
and local governments to stabilize neighborhoods by addressing problems related to blight,
abandonment, health and safety hazards, and declining property values. 248 Existing public agencies,
such as redevelopment authorities and housing and/or planning departments, may also create and
administer land banking programs. According to the Center for Community Progress, there were
approximately 250 land banks and land banking programs in operation across the U.S. as of 2021,
up from 170 in 2017, with the greatest number located in the states of Michigan, Ohio, Georgia,
Pennsylvania and New York. 249 Each of these states have also established statewide land bank
associations to represent and advocate for their work.
According to Frank Alexander, the nation’s leading expert on land banks, “the primary thrust of all
land banks and land banking initiatives is to acquire and maintain properties that have been
rejected by the open market and left as growing liabilities for neighborhoods and communities. The
first task is the acquisition of title to such properties; the second task is the elimination of the
liabilities; the third task is the transfer of the properties to new owners in a manner most supportive
of local needs and priorities.” 250
To achieve their key functions of acquiring problem properties and returning them to productive use,
land banks are usually given special legal powers to expedite this process. These include obtaining
property at no or low cost through tax foreclosure, holding land tax-free, clearing title and/or
removing any back taxes on the property, leasing properties for temporary uses such as community
gardens, and negotiating sales that takes into consideration community needs, such as workforce
housing, a grocery store, or green space (Figure 65).

Figure 65. How a Land Bank Works

Source: Kim Graziani, Land Banks and Community Land Trusts, (Flint, MI: Center for Community Progress,
2021), p.5

As Alexander notes, “the financing of the operations of a land bank cannot be an afterthought. It
must be contemplated in and anticipated by the state enabling legislation, the intergovernmental
agreement and the operational priorities as established by the land bank’s board of directors. The

Center for Community Progress, “Frequently Asked Questions on Land Banking,” Accessed February 24,
248

2022.
249 Ibid. See also CCP’s Land Bank Interactive Map.
250 Frank Alexander, Land Banks and Land Banking, 2d ed, (Flint, MI: Center for Community Progress, 2015).

166
starting point for any discussion of funding land bank operations must always be with the nature of
the real property inventory that is the focus of the land bank’s activities.” 251
Land Bank Funding Sources. Alexander points out that there are five primary sources of funding
that have been used to support the operation of land banks. The first, general revenue funding, can
be used to support the entire operation of the land bank, which was the means taken by many of the
first generation land banks (e.g., St. Louis, Cleveland, Louisville, Atlanta). This approach tends to
work best when the land bank operations are integrated into the functions of a department or agency
of local government (e.g., department of housing and community development) and existing offices
and agency personnel carry out the day-to-day activities of the land bank. According to Alexander
there are three disadvantages to relying on general fund revenue to support the operation of land
banks: 1) they tend to work best when costs are low, which typically applies only to circumstances
where the property inventory is low; 2) many land banks encompass multiple local governments,
which often creates tensions regarding whether each contributing local government is getting value
commensurate with its contributions; and 3) reliance on general funds is not assured each year and
largely dependent on the whims of local elected officials.

A second financing strategy for land bank operations is cross subsidization based on the disposition
of the land bank’s inventory. In this scenario, the surplus proceeds of the disposition of properties
under the control of the land bank (after recovering the costs of acquisition, extinguishing the tax
lien, rehabilitation, and management) are used to support the land bank’s operations. Alexander
notes this approach is “viable only when there is a tax foreclosure system that results in a transfer of
all, or substantially all, of the tax delinquent properties directly to the land bank or to the local
government that creates the land bank.” 252
A third financing strategy is to return to the land bank a portion of the property tax proceeds
generated on properties that are returned to productive use by the land bank. Alexander found, for
example, that Michigan permits its local land banks to receive 50 percent of the property tax
revenues generated by properties returned to private use by its local land banks.
A fourth financing strategy is the utilization of delinquent tax revolving loan funds. Alexander notes
that this practice is used by 82 of Michigan’s 83 counties. With this approach, a land bank borrows
funds to liquidate the entire amount of delinquent taxes in a local government’s tax digest and in
return receives “control of all delinquent tax liens, the right to enforce such liens, and most
significantly the interest and penalties on such liens.” 253 This in turn, allows the land bank to use the
revenue stream from interest and penalties to support “the tax enforcement process and the
management of the tax-foreclosed properties that are never redeemed.” 254
A fifth financing strategy based on borrowing and bond financing has emerged in many third
generation land banks. With this approach, the enabling statute permits land banks to issue bonds
backed by its revenue stream or property inventory or both. Alexander notes that “the debts and
obligations of the land bank should not be the debts or obligations of the local governments, and
should be restricted to the assets and revenues of the land bank.” 255

251 Ibid., p. 48.

252 Ibid., p. 49.
253 Ibid., p. 51.
254 Ibid.
255 Ibid., p. 52.

167
Beyond management and administrative operations, land banks may receive funds from a variety of
sources including proceeds from the sale of properties, grants from foundations and other
philanthropic sources, and state and federal grants to assist in the acquisition, maintenance, and
rehabilitation of properties.
Comparison Counties. As shown in Table 18, only four of the comparison counties—Claytonm,
DeKalb, Fulton, and Jefferson—have used land banks and land banking as a housing preservation
strategy.
The city of Atlanta and Fulton County joined together in 1994 to create the Fulton County/City of
Atlanta Land Bank Authority. The land bank authority has primarily focused on creating affordable
housing and promoting economic development by acquiring, holding, and managing tax delinquent
properties and returning them to productive use, often in partnership with other community and
economic development entities such as city and county agencies, community development
corporations, and nonprofit and for-profit developers. The authority refocused its activities in 2012 to
provide greater emphasis on blight elimination, affordable and market housing, and neighborhood
revitalization. Between 2010 and 2017 the land bank authority has acquired a total of 423 properties
and disposed of 276 properties. 256
Currently, the land bank is operating as the Metro Atlanta Land Bank and includes a broader set of
partner agencies and organizations. A new focus of the land bank is the conversion of
vacant/underutilized public land into sites for affordable housing. Last year the Atlanta City Council
approved legislation permitting the city to transfer undeveloped city-owned land to Invest Atlanta
and the Metro Atlanta Land Bank and the first parcels were approved for transfer in April 2021. The
city’s Department of City Planning has identified nearly 900 acres of publicly-owned land that is
suitable for affordable housing development and another 5,612 acres that may be suitable for future
development of affordable housing pending further suitability analysis. 257
In August 2011, DeKalb County and the municipality of Decatur entered into an intergovernmental
agreement to create the DeKalb Regional Land Bank that would focus on “converting vacant,
abandoned and tax-delinquent properties to productive use in order to stabilize neighborhoods and
promote quality housing, encourage new industry and generate additional jobs.” 258 NSP funds in the
amount of $300,000 were allocated to the land bank in 2015 to support the acquisition of foreclosed
homes.
Following the withdrawal of the city of Decatur from the DeKalb Regional Land Bank Authority in
2016, the land bank has been inactive due to staffing and funding issues. In 2018, the county
commission approved a resolution that called for reactivating the land bank authority as a means for
addressing blight in the county. One option under consideration is execution of an intergovernmental
agreement with the DeKalb municipalities of Clarkston and Lithonia to join the regional land bank
authority as Georgia’s enabling legislation requires municipal participation in local land banks. 259

256Christopher Norman, “Fulton/Atlanta Land Bank Authority, Inc: Overview and Update,” Presentation to the
Atlanta City Council, Committee on Community Development and Human Services, February 27, 2018.
Dyana Bagby, “Atlanta Begins First-Ever Plan to Use Public Property for Affordable Housing,” Atlanta
257

Business Chronicle, April 28, 2021.

258DeKalb Regional Land Bank, https://www.dekalbcountyga.gov/community-development/dekalb-regional-
land-bank.
259 Horace Holloman, “Officials Working to Resurrect Land Bank,” The Champion, November 8, 2019.

168
Clayton County established its Land Bank Authority in 2014. The county partners with its
municipalities to return tax delinquent dilapidated and abandoned properties to productive use. The
authority currently holds more than 750 parcels in its inventory. 260
Though Jefferson County does not have a land bank, its primary city, Birmingham, created the
Birmingham Land Bank Authority in October 2014. Its primary mission is to acquire the tax deed to
residential properties located within the city of Birmingham that have been tax delinquent for at
least five years. Once the land bank authority acquires the tax deed, applicants can apply to gain use
of the property through one of three programs: side lot program (home owners only), adopt-a-lot
(home owners, nonprofits, churches, faith-based organizations), or general request, in which
residents, organizations, or developers can apply to have the land bank authority clear the title so
the property can be sold to them. 261 The side lot and adopt-a-lot program allow home owners and
neighborhood organizations to gain immediate access to a tax-delinquent property through a two-
year lease with the land bank authority. During that time the land bank authority works to clear
title to the property and once that has been accomplished, the applicant may purchase the property
from the land bank. According to one recent study, as of February 2017, the land bank authority had
put 428 properties back into use, which yielded the city an additional $44,000 in annual tax revenue.
Another 900 properties were in some stage of review at the time of the report. In addition, the city’s
community development director notes the city now has almost 500 fewer lots to take care of, which
at an average cost of $1,000 a year for maintenance, translates into a cost savings of a half a million
dollars. 262
The state of Maryland passed legislation in 2017 expanding the enabling power of local governments
to create a land bank authority. Previously, only individual municipalities were permitted to
establish a land bank. The new law extends the authority to counties and also permits one or more
local governments to enter into an intergovernmental cooperation agreement to create a single land
bank authority to operate on behalf of the local governments. 263 To date, neither Anne Arundel or
Prince George’s counties have moved forward on the creation of a land bank authority.

Tax Relief
The clear majority of state and local governments provide some type of property tax relief for elderly
homeowners and for lower-income home owners who live in their homes for some specified period of
time. 264 Forty-three states and the District of Columbia provide a homestead exemption, credit, or
rebate program to elderly homeowners. Four additional states provide this option to their local
governments. These programs reduce the tax burden on elderly homeowners, which in turn help to
promote affordability.
According to a recent national survey of state property tax relief programs for the elderly, the most
widely used practice is a homestead exemption for eligible homeowners that reduces their tax

260 Clayton County Land Bank Board, Land Bank Inventory.

261Birmingham Land Bank Authority, About Us, https://public-
blba.epropertyplus.com/landmgmtpub/app/base/landing#.
262Cody Owens, “Who’s Using the Birmingham Land Bank Authority?” Weld: Birmingham’s Newspaper, 20
February 2017. Available at http://weldbham.com/blog/2017/02/20/whos-using-birmingham-land-bank-
authority/.
263 Maryland General Assembly, Counties and Municipalities-Land Bank Authorities, HB1168, October 1, 2017.
264According to a recent national survey, only four states do not provide some form of property tax relief to
elderly homeowners—Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, and West Virginia. Katie Babe, “Property Tax Relief
for the Elderly: A Survey of the Nation,” Marquette Elder’s Advisor, 6, 2, (2005), pp. 327.

169
liability by excluding a portion of the home’s value from taxation, which in turn lowers the amount of
property taxes due before the homeowner receives their tax bill. The amount of the exemption varies
widely across the states. In Georgia, for example, the exemption can cover the entire tax bill if the
amount of the tax due is less than $4,000. In Massachusetts, on the other hand, the value of the
exemption is capped at $175. 265 More than half of the states (27) offer property tax deferrals or
property tax freezes to the elderly; 20 of these 27 states restrict eligibility for the tax deferral to
elderly households with income below a specified amount.
About half the states provide property tax exemptions, credits, or rebates to all homeowners or allow
their local governments the option to do so. In either case, the property tax relief provided to elderly
homeowners is greater than what states provide to all homeowners. A number of states also provide
property tax relief to low- and moderate-income homeowners, including both states with and without
a state income tax. 266 In Texas, for example, low income homeowners may receive a property tax
homestead exemption of up to $15,000 to reduce the taxed value of their home. In New Hampshire,
households with income less than $40,000 may receive relief from the state education portion of their
property tax bill. North Carolina allows low-income homeowners to lower the taxable value of their
residence by $29,500 or 50 percent, whichever is greater. Michigan provides a hardship exemption
for low income homeowners for all or part of their current year (or next year) property taxes.
In some jurisdictions that experience rapid housing appreciation due to gentrification and rising
property values, elderly and lower-income residents may defer payment on any increased tax
liability that results from the appreciation of their home values until the time at which they sell
their home. The deferred tax payments are then made from the profit on the sale of their home.
Examples include the cities of Boston, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Washington, among others, that
have initiatives planned or underway that would reduce or freeze property taxes for low-, working-
and lower-middle class homeowners in neighborhoods threatened by gentrification. 267 Lexington,
Kentucky, is currently considering a bill that would help low income, longtime homeowners in
gentrifying neighborhoods. 268 The city of Atlanta and the Westside Future Fund, a nonprofit
organization working to revitalize neighborhoods in the city’s westside, recently created a $5 million
“anti-displacement” fund, supported by private donations, to cover all property tax increases in the
neighborhood for the next 20 years for longtime homeowners. 269
Table 18 shows that all eleven counties have state property tax relief programs and most also
supplement that assistance with additional homestead exemptions, credits, or rebate programs.
Most counties help with the elderly, disabled, and veterans. A few counties provide additional
property tax relief for low-income homeowners.

265 Ibid., pp. 325-26.

266Iris J. Lav, “State Low-Income Tax Relief in the Absence of an Income Tax,” Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities, February 14, 2008. Available at https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-low-income-tax-reflief-in-the-
absence-of-an-income-tax.
Timothy Williams, “Cities Mobilize to Help Those Threatened by Gentrification,” New York Times, March 3,
267

2014. Available at https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/04/us/cities-helping-residents-resist-the-new-gentry.html.

268 A final draft is expected to be available in 2018. “Proposal Offers Property Tax Relief in Gentrifying Areas,”

US News, September 27, 2017.

269Eligible households must earn less than 100 percent of the Area Median Income and the property must be
the applicant’s primary residence. Philanthropic support was provided by the Arthur M. Blank Family
Foundation, the Chick-fil-A Foundation, the Georgia Power Foundation, Cox Enterprises, Pulte Group, Delta
Air Lines, Georgia-Pacific and individual contributor Tommy Holder, chairman and CEO of Holder Construction
Company. “Westside Future Fund, City of Atlanta Announce Anti-Displacement Tax Fund Program,” Westside
Future Fund, April 12, 2017. Available at https://www.westsidefuturefund.org/news/tax-fund/.

170
Distressed Property Investors
One of the most challenging issues local governments face in addressing neighborhood conditions is
dealing with distressed property investors. Alan Mallach notes that “distressed property investors
vary greatly in size and sophistication, and their goals, strategies and time horizons as investors
vary as widely.” 270 Among the most problematic investors for neighborhoods and local governments
are what Mallach calls “Milkers,” investors who “buy properties in poor condition for very low prices
and rent them out in as-is or similar condition with minimal maintenance, often to problem
tenants.” 271 Mallach observes that the most successful actions local governments can take in
addressing distressed property investors involve a combination of regulation and financial incentives
that taken together aim “to change the landlord’s financial equation, so that it is in his interest to
behave responsibly…[Such] strategies should also foster greater landlord or lender accountability.” 272

“The most successful actions local governments can take in

addressing distressed property investors involve a combination
of regulation and financial incentives that taken together aim
to change the landlord’s financial equation, so that it is in his
interest to behave responsibly.”
--Alan Mallach

Mallach identifies a variety of regulatory strategies local governments can pursue, many of which
provide opportunities for community residents, neighborhood organizations, and community
development corporations to join in the effort (Table 20). Mallach’s recommendations are “based on
the proposition that cities and CDCs have powerful tools with which to influence the behavior of
distressed property investors, to motivate responsible behavior and discourage activities that do
harm to residents and neighborhoods.” Several strategies focus on keeping track of landlords and
properties. These include a rental registration ordinance, which enables the local government to
contact property owners in the case of an emergency or code violation and also serve to educate
property owners on landlord obligations under local government ordinances; notice requirements,
which require landlords to contact the local government when property changes hands; finding
properties, as many rental properties will likely go unregistered based on the experiences of cities
that have adopted rental registration requirements; and identifying “bad apples” or the problem
properties that generally consume a disproportionate share of the local government’s time and
resources. To assist in property identification, the City of Atlanta, for example, created a
Neighborhood Deputies program, in which citizen volunteers receive training in zoning and code
violations and assist the city in distributing information to property owners about housing codes and

270Alan Mallach, Meeting the Challenge of Distressed Property Investors in America’s Neighborhoods, New York,
LISC, October 2010, p. 9. Available at
http://www.instituteccd.org/uploads/iccd/documents/102010_distressed_property_investors.pdf.
271 Ibid., p.10.
272 Ibid., p. 46.

171
violations, identify and report code violations to city officials, and follow-up on reported violations to
verify compliance.
Mallach lists six strategies local governments can employ regarding threshold property standards.
These include a rental licensing program, which is often used in conjunction with a rental
registration program, but goes a step further by requiring the property pass a health and safety
inspection prior to its units going on the market. A second strategy is to broaden certificate of

Table 20. Principal Regulatory Strategies for Addressing Distressed Property Investors
Category Strategy
Keeping track of Rental registration
landlords and properties
Notice requirements during
foreclosure
Finding rental properties
Identifying ‘bad apples’
Establishing minimum Rental licensing
property standards
Certificate of occupancy
inspections
Disclosure of findings
Code enforcement
Nuisance abatement
Landlord security deposit
Covering regulatory Rental conversion fee
costs
Disproportionate impact fee
Imposing penalties
Source: Allan Mallach, Meeting the Challenge of Distressed Property Investors in America’s
Neighborhoods, p. 49.
Description/Examples
Landlords must register with city and provide
contact information.
Foreclosing entities must provide city with
notice when initiating foreclosure, taking
property at foreclosure sale and conveying
properties.
City leverages its resources with citizen and
other resources to identify unregistered
properties.
Systems to identify and target remedies
toward problem landlords and properties.
Combine registration with health and safety
inspection at regular intervals for rental
properties.
City requires inspection and certificate of
occupancy on change of ownership and/or
change of occupancy.
City requires disclosure of all repair needs and
code violations prior to conveyance of any
property taken through foreclosure process.
City targets city code enforcement resources
or works with CDCs and residents to
supplement public sector resources.
City establishes ongoing program to abate
nuisance conditions and recapture funds.
Landlords must provide city with security
deposition which city can use to make
emergency repairs.
Fee charged if unit goes from owner-
occupancy to rental tenure.
Rental licensing fee set on basis of
disproportionate impact of rental housing on
municipal services.
Imposing penalties on owners for failure to
comply with notice or substantive regulations.

172
occupancy requirements beyond completion of new construction or substantial rehabilitation.
Mallach notes local governments may choose to impose CO requirements when a property changes
ownership, has a change in rental tenantry, or a change in use such as from commercial to
residential. A third strategy used by some local governments, such as Miami-Dade County, requires
a disclosure of findings report from properties that have gone through the foreclosure process before
the party taking ownership through foreclosure can offer the property for sale to a third party. The
disclosure report is based on a thorough inspection conducted by an engineer or architect which
includes a cost estimate of the repairs needed to bring the property into compliance with local codes.
Code enforcement is the primary tool that local governments use to ensure that properties are
maintained at minimum standards. It is therefore imperative that local governments periodically
reevaluate and update their building codes to ensure that they are compliant with industry
standards, such as those published by the International Property Maintenance Code. A strong code
without effective enforcement, however, is unlikely to maintain property standards. As discussed
above and noted in Mallach’s report, local governments have many strategies to choose from
regarding code enforcement. These include more frequent code inspection for those properties that
have a history of code violations, and geographic targeting of code enforcement activities to
neighborhoods where problem properties are concentrated and/or to neighborhoods that are target
areas for local government investment through programs such as CDBG, HOME, and/or NSP.
Mallach notes that nuisance abatement may be required in those instances where landlords “fail to
maintain their properties adequately, allow nuisance conditions to emerge, and fail or refuse to
comply with violation notices and orders.” 273 While local governments typically have a range of
options in such situations, ordering the building to be vacated may place undue hardship on its
tenants and exacerbate the affordable housing challenge unless the local government and/or its
partners have a plan in place to temporarily (or permanently) rehouse the affected tenants.
A recent report for the city of Atlanta by the Center for Community Progress found that “the City of
Atlanta already has at its disposal the necessary legal and policy tools to maximize the possibility of
forcing property owners to fix up problem properties, pay up taxpayer expended funds spent on such
properties, or give up problem properties to responsible public or private ownership.” 274 These tools
include Judicial In Rem Code Enforcement and Judicial In Rem Tax Sale, which the report authors
note are more effective, efficient, and equitable than traditional code enforcement procedures. They
conclude that the use of Judicial In Rem Code Enforcement and Judicial In Rem Tax Sales, focused
on the placement of super-priority liens on problem parcels, will maximize the likelihood of either
recovery of public funds invested, or a forced transfer in ownership of the most destructive
parcels…[these practices] will help ensure that owners of vacant, abandoned and hazardous
properties will either fix up, pay up, or give up problem properties.” 275
Another regulatory strategy used by local governments is requiring landlords to submit a security
deposit with the local government. These funds are then used to address any emergency condition
with the property for which the landlord has failed to respond within 24 hours of notification. The

273 Ibid., p. 59.

274Emphasis in original. Frank Alexander and Sara Toering, Judicial In Rem Code Enforcement and Judicial In
Rem Tax Sales: Optimum Tools to Combat Vacancy and Abandonment in Atlanta,” Center for Community
Progress, December 2014, p.1. Available at http://www.communityprogress.net/judicial-in-rem-code-
enforcement-and-judicial-in-rem-tax-sales--optimum-tools-to-combat-vacancy-and-abandonment-in-atlanta-
pages-479.php.
275 Ibid, p.34.

173
local government is then reimbursed from the security fund for costs associated with the repair and
the landlord is subsequently required to reestablish his security deposit.
Mallach notes that regulation imposes costs and most local governments are strapped for funds to
maintain public services. Many local governments have imposed a variety of fees on landlords to help
offset the costs of regulation. Fees range from $10 in Buffalo for a single-family rental registration to
several hundreds of dollars in other jurisdictions for certificates of use, rental licensing, or public
nuisance abatement, among others. In Minneapolis, for example, the city charges a fee of $1,000
when a property is converted from owner-occupied to renter-occupancy. In Utah, many local
governments are permitted to enact a disproportionate rental fee ordinance to compensate for the
greater service burdens that rental properties tend to impose. Finally, although primarily used to
impose sanctions for violations of rental property regulation, the financial penalties and fees levied
by local governments, which vary widely, can also be a means for offsetting the costs of regulation.

Table 21. Incentive Strategies for Landlords

Category Strategy Description/Examples

Incentives/ support for
responsible property
management
Incentives for property
acquisition and improvement
Source: Allan Mallach, Meeting the Challenge of Distressed Property Investors in America’s
Neighborhoods, p. 68.
Training programs
Crime reduction programs
Financial incentives
Multi-faceted programs
Direct financial assistance
Tax incentives
Wide variety of landlord training programs
and informational materials offered
1) Crime-Free Rental Housing Program
offered through local police
departments
2) Provisions of Utah Good Landlord
Program
3) Reduced penalties for violations for
landlords participating in city crime-
fighting programs
1) Discount on disproportionate impact fee
2) City program to guarantee tenant
security deposits for landlords
Programs that typically both (1) require
multiple landlord actions; and (2) offer
‘packages’ of incentives or rewards, such as
the Utah Good Landlord Program or
Landlord Accreditation Schemes established
by some cities in the United Kingdom
1) City or community development
financial institution (“CDFI”) offers
financial assistance to investors to buy
and rehabilitate properties in NSP areas
2) City or CDFI offers below-market
improvement loans to owners of rental
property
City offers property tax incentives for
improvements to rental properties

174
As Mallach points out, “regulations are only part of the picture…To build a cadre of responsible
landlords, a city must go beyond regulation to create a landlord support system. The support system
and the regulatory system are interactive, not separate strategies. Some of the most effective
incentives tie into the regulatory system by offering regulatory relief as a product of responsible
behavior.” 276 Table 21 lists the incentive strategies offered by Mallach as a means for encouraging
better investor and landlord behavior. These include education and training programs, crime
reduction programs, financial incentives, and comprehensive programs that combine landlord
actions and incentives or rewards. Examples of the types of incentives or rewards that are often
included in landlord incentive programs are noted in Table 22.

Table 22. Potential Incentives Cities Can Offer in a Landlord Incentive Program
Category Examples

Training and technical assistance • Free training courses sponsored by city

Improved access
Improved process
Help obtaining tenants
Indirect financial assistance
Direct financial assistance
Source: Allan Mallach, Meeting the Challenge of Distressed Property Investors in America’s
Neighborhoods, p. 72.
• One-on-one technical assistance on specific problems
• Discounts to community college courses
• Free preventive maintenance and security inspections
• Single point of contact in city hall
• Designated police department liaison
• Participation in regular landlord forums with key government
officials
• Fast-track approval for construction permits
• Flexibility to make necessary repairs and improvements in stages
• Expedited problem tenant eviction procedure
• Greater access to available properties
• Free advertising in newspapers and web sites
• City guarantees security deposit for tenants meeting set standards
but lacking funds
• Recommend landlord status for housing choice vouchers
• Free or subsidized safety inspections
• Free or subsidized equipment, such as smoke detectors, carbon
monoxide detectors, security locks or closed-circuit cameras
• Insurance discounts
• Discounts on goods and services at local merchants
• Reduced fees for municipal permits or licenses
• Rebate of licensing or other fees
• Loans or grants for property improvements

276 Ibid., p. 67

175
Troubled Building Initiative. One of the nation’s most innovative programs for dealing with the
loss of multifamily buildings that offer “naturally affordable” apartments is the city of Chicago’s
Troubled Building Initiative. 277 The initiative, which was launched in 2004 and to date has preserved
more than 17,000 affordable apartments is especially effective in dealing with troubled buildings
that are in poor condition or face the risk of abandonment, many of which also have recalcitrant
landlords or ones that are difficult to locate.
The initiative is a collaborative, cross-sector partnership that includes six city departments, a
nonprofit community development financial institution (CDFI), and numerous community groups,
tenant organizations, and neighborhood-based nonprofits. Buildings that come to the attention of
TBI through complaints, inspections, or code violations undergo a comprehensive physical and
financial assessment to determine what physical deficiencies need attention. TBI’s nonprofit CDFI
partner works with the owner to arrange financing to improve the property, or in instances where
the owner prefers to sell, helps to find a new owner to purchase, rehabilitate, and maintain the
affordability of the building.
For owners that cannot be located or refuse to respond to city requests to bring the property up to
code standards, the case is referred to housing court to address the code violations; when an owner
cannot be located, the financial institution with a stake in the property serves as the “owner” in
housing court. If the outstanding issues cannot be resolved in housing court, the court will appoint a
receiver who will oversee any repairs to the building directed by the court. In instances where the
property owner or mortgage institution does not repay the repair costs, the court issues a lien on the
property and the receiver can use this lien to put the property into foreclosure.
Funding for the TBI initiative, which costs about $6 million a year, is provided primarily through the
city’s Community Development Block Grant program, with additional funds obtained through
private sources and from the revenues derived from the receiver liens. The city recently expanded
the program through the creation of a Community Receivership program designed to assist local
stakeholders, contractors, and investors to utilize receivership as a means to acquire and rehabilitate
troubled buildings.

Asset Building Strategies

Federal, state, and local governments have established a variety of programs and strategies for
increasing the assets of low- and moderate-income families, many of which are directed at helping
low income families become homebuyers. In this section we examine county participation in HUD’s
Family Self-Sufficiency program, homeownership and education counseling programs, homebuyer
assistance programs, the Section 8 Homeownership program, cooperative housing, and community
land trusts (Table 23).

Family Self-Sufficiency
The Family Self-Sufficiency program was created by the National Affordable Housing Act of 1990.
Based on earlier program models, the FSS program is designed to increase the earned income of
HUD-assisted families and reduce their dependence on public assistance and HUD rental subsidies.
Once selected to participate in the FSS program, the head of each FSS family enters into a
participation contract, generally for a period of five years, which incorporates the family’s individual

“Chicago, Illinois: The City’s Troubled Building Initiative Renovates and Preserves Deteriorating
277

Apartments,” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD User, Case Studies.
Available at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/casestudies/study-043018.html.

176
training and services plan that outlines the key steps and milestones for the family as it moves
toward self-sufficiency. Services that may be coordinated through the plan include child care,
transportation, education, job training, employment counseling, financial literacy, and
homeownership counseling, among others. Upon entry into the program, an interest-bearing escrow
account is established for each FSS family. Any increases in the family’s rent because of increased
income during the program period are entered as a credit to the family’s escrow account. Upon
graduation from the FSS program, the family may access its escrow account and use the funds for
any purpose.
According to HUD, FSS is the largest asset-building program for low income families in the country,
serving over 65,000 families in 2020. 278 In 2012, HUD commissioned a national randomized control
evaluation of FSS programs administered by 18 public housing authorities. According to the
midpoint findings, based on three years of follow-up following program assignment, FSS participants
were more likely to have enrolled in a range of employment-related and support services relative to
those in the control group, though FSS participants had not at this point in the study achieved
statistically significant differences in employment rates or average earnings. The midpoint findings
did show, however, that over half of the FSS participants had accrued some escrow over the three
years of follow-up with an average balance of $3,700. 279
Table 23 shows that nine of the 11 counties included in the analysis (all but Gwinnett and Fort Bend)
have a county or municipal housing authority participating in HUD’s FSS program. According to
HUD’s performance data reports on FSS participation for FY 2017, the most recent year for which
data are available, FSS enrollments in the 11 study counties range from 22 in Fulton County to more
than 150 in Jefferson and Anne Arundel counties. 280

Homeownership and Education Counseling

There are many public, private, and nonprofit organizations that provide homeownership education
and counseling programs to assist potential homebuyers making informed decisions about
homeownership and in navigating the home-buying process. National homebuyer certification
programs, such as those offered by the National Industry Standards for Homeownership Education
and Counseling, NeighborWorks America, and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, require a minimum of eight hours of face-to-face classroom training for potential home
buyers. Most programs that provide financial assistance for first-time home buyers require
successful completion of a homebuyer education and counseling program.
In 2014, HUD launched a randomized experiment to assess the effects of homebuyer education and
counseling based on a sample of more than 5,800 low-, moderate-, and middle-income prospective
first-time homebuyers in 28 metropolitan areas including Atlanta. Study participants in the
treatment group were offered free homebuyer education and counseling services either in person at a
local housing counseling agency or remotely through programs available on the internet or by
telephone. Based on preliminary findings from the study’s first year of observations, more than half
of the study participants who were offered homebuyer education and counseling services initiated

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Family Self-
278

Sufficiency Program, FY2022 FSS HUD Congressional Justification, Summary Statement and Initiatives.
Nandita Verma, Stephen Freedman, Betsy Tessler, Barbara Fink, and David Navarro, Work, Engagement,
279

and Well-Being at the Midpoint: Findings from the Family Self-Sufficiency Evaluation, Washington, D.C.:
Report prepared for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and
Research, July 2021.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Housing Choice Vouchers, Family Self-
280

Sufficiency (FSS) Program, Updated FSS Performance Measures, retrieved February 27, 2022.

177
Table 23. Asset-Building Strategies by County
Housing Choice
HUD Homeownership
Community Land Vouchers
County Family Self- and Education Homebuying Assistance Housing Co-ops
Trusts Homeownership
Sufficiency (FSS) Counseling
Program
Loans; down payment assistance; Only one--
DeKalb, GA No* Yes No County: 43
income limits: $84,500 East Lake
Yes Loans; down payment assistance; Only one co-op
Clayton, GA Yes No Jonesboro: 4
City PHA: 88 income limits: $84,500 building in county
Yes Loans; down payment assistance;
Cobb, GA Yes No No Marietta: 43
City PHA: 136 income limits: $84,500
Atlanta: 24
Yes Yes-
Loans; down payment assistance; Only one-- College Park: 15
Fulton, GA County: 22 Yes City of Atlanta
income limits: $84,500 Lake Claire East Point: 4
City PHAs: 156 (2009)
County: 25
Loans; down payment assistance;
Gwinnett, GA No Yes No No No
income limits: $84,500
Yes Loans; down payment assistance; tax credits; Two co-op buildings Birmingham Birmingham: 11
Jefferson, AL Yes
159 income limits: $97,300 in county (2016) County: 24
Loans; down payment assistance; closing costs;
Yes Only one co-op
Polk, FL Yes tax credits; No No
City PHA: 113 building in county
income limits: $66,220
Loans; down payment assistance; closing costs;
Yes Only one co-op
Volusia, FL Yes tax credits; No No
City PHA: 120 building in county
income limits: $70,420
Loans; down payment assistance; closing costs;
Yes
Anne Arundel, MD Yes tax credits; No No County: 15
County: 167
income limits: $130,000
Loans; down payment assistance; closing costs; Many co-op buildings
Yes
Prince George’s, MD Yes tax credits; in county No County: 80
County: 136
income limits: $154,000 (at least 10)
Loans; down payment assistance; closing costs;
Fort Bend, TX No Yes tax credits; No No Rosenberg: 2
income limits: $100,000
* The Housing Authority of DeKalb County, through its nonprofit affiliate Resident Services Corporation, administers a Family Self Sufficiency
program similar to HUD’s, for unemployed and under employed Housing Choice Voucher recipients.

178
service, with those offered remote service (63%) more than twice as likely as those offered in-person
service (26%) to initiate at least one service. 281 Focus groups revealed that the reasons participants
did not take up services varied by the service delivery mode; persons assigned to in-person
homebuyer education and counseling services noted difficulties with scheduling, the length of the
course, and the location of the service provider as factors that discouraged them from participating
whereas persons assigned to remote services indicated the length of time needed to complete the
course and other priorities on their schedules. 282 An interim report on the study findings is scheduled
for early 2018 and the full report is due in 2020.
As shown in Table 23, all eleven counties included in the analysis have homebuyer education and
counseling programs available for first-time homebuyers.

Homebuyer Assistance
A variety of federal, state, and local programs provide financial assistance designed to increase home
ownership. 283 All fifty states have some type of home buyer program, though the number of
programs, their target populations, and types of financial incentives available vary widely. For
instance, the number of programs in the five states included in this analysis ranges from two in
Alabama to eight in Maryland. All provide 30-year fixed rate mortgages competitive with commercial
rates and all have first-time homebuyer programs that provide down payment assistance and some
also help with closing costs (Table 23). The income limits vary widely across these states, with most
providing eligibility to families at or below moderate income thresholds. Florida and Texas, for
example, aid families earning up to 140 percent of AMI; in Georgia, eligibility tops out at $84,500 for
a three-person family (about 120% of AMI) and the purchase price cannot exceed $250,000. All but
Georgia also provide some type of tax credit program that lowers homebuyer tax liability based on
mortgage interest paid. Typically, these programs cap their credit at $2,000. All target eligible first-
time homebuyers. Georgia, Maryland, and Texas have programs targeted to special groups such as
military veterans, emergency medical services personnel, fire fighters, police officers, teachers, and
nurses. Maryland also has special programs for first-time homebuyers with student debt.
As noted earlier more than one-fourth (26%) of the HOME funds awarded to date nationally have
been used for homebuyer programs. Among the counties included in this analysis, the share of
HOME funds (1992-2019) used to support homebuyer programs ranges from about 10 percent in
Fulton County to more than 85 percent in Clayton and Gwinnett counties; DeKalb County has spent
33 percent of its cumulative HOME funds on homebuyer assistance (see Figure 59, page 75).

Cooperative Housing
A housing cooperative is a form of housing tenure in which people come together to own and control
the buildings they live in. The residents purchase shares in the cooperative and pay a monthly fee to
cover the property’s operating expenses (e.g., mortgage expenses, property taxes, management fees,
maintenance costs, insurance premiums, utilities, and contributions toward reserve funds). The
share price represents the cost to the individual of purchasing a membership in the housing
cooperative, which in turn entitles the purchaser to live in a specific unit for as long as they want

Donna DeMarco et al, The First-Time Homebuyer Education and Counseling Demonstration: Baseline
281

Report—Study Design and Implementation, (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, January 2017), p. 72.
282 Ibid., p. 112.
283 Home Buyer Programs by State: 2017.

179
contingent on their complying with the cooperative’s rules and regulations. They also receive a vote
in matters pertaining to the governance of the housing cooperative. 284 There are many different types
of housing cooperatives, with limited equity cooperatives being the preferred form for maintaining
long-term affordability. 285 These types of housing cooperatives place limits on the resale of a unit’s
price and typically also limit the resale of membership shares to low- and moderate-income
households.
According to Gerald Sazama, the affordable housing cooperative movement in the US can be traced
to the 1920s when ethnic and union groups began to form self-help cooperatives. 286 In the 1960s and
1970s, federal funding for low-income cooperatives became more widely available and in the 1980s
and 1990s nonprofit organizations began to pool funds from a variety of public and private sources to
create affordable housing cooperatives. For example, Sazama notes that since the 1980s about 18,000
units of public housing have been converted to affordable cooperatives. Other important sources of
funding for cooperatives include the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit and housing assistance
available through state and local governments. 287 Sazama also notes that the shift in financing
mechanisms has influenced the size of cooperatives. During the period of direct federal funding,
housing cooperatives generally ranged in size between 50 and 300 units with an average size of
about 100 units; the more recent cooperatives developed by nonprofits beginning in the 1980s and
1990s were much smaller, ranging in size from 3 or 4 to 150 units with a typical cooperative falling
in the 5 to 40-unit range. 288
Firm estimates of the number of cooperative housing units are difficult to locate. The National
Association of Housing Cooperatives and the co-op community have often cited 425,000 units in the
national limited-equity cooperative housing stock. More recent estimates by the Urban
Homesteading Assistance Board (UHAB) put the number of cooperative housing units at about
300,000 of which about half are still limited-equity. 289 The lower figures are largely attributed to the
fact that many of the earlier cooperative housing units have been converted to market rate units.
According to the UHAB, cooperative housing communities tend to be concentrated in the Northeast
(about half are in New York), Midwest, and West coast; fewer cooperatives are found in the South,
mountain states, and in the upper Midwest and plains states. 290
Consistent with this trend, while seven of the eleven counties included in this analysis have at least
one cooperative housing community in their county, five counties only have one housing cooperative,
Jefferson County has two housing co-ops, and Prince George’s County has at least ten housing
cooperatives.

284 National Association of Housing Cooperatives, “Buying into a Housing Cooperative.”

Northcountry Cooperative Development Fund, “Housing Cooperatives: An Accessible and Lasting Tool for
285

Home Ownership,” Minneapolis, MN: Northcountry Cooperative Development Fund.

286Gerald W. Sazama, “Lessons from the History of Affordable Housing Cooperatives in the United States: A
Case Study in American Affordable Housing Policy,” American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 59, 4
(October 2000): 573-608.
287 Sazama, p. 591.
288 Sazama, p. 595.
Urban Homesteading Assistance Board, “Counting Limited Equity Co-Ops, Research Update,” UHAB,
289

February 2016. Available at http://www.uhab.org/sites/default/files/research_update_feb_2016.pdf.

290Urban Homesteading Assistance Board, National Co-op Research, Available at
http://www.uhab.org/coopresearch. See in particular the interactive map of the Cooperative Housing
Community.

180
Community Land Trusts
Community Land Trusts are private nonprofit organizations that acquire and hold land for
community benefit. While many CLTs were formed for the conservation of wetlands, wooded areas,
etc., many CLTs were created to promote affordable housing ownership opportunities. In this
scenario, the CLT permanently retains ownership of the land and the homeowners own the housing
structure. Under the rules of the CLT, homeowners are permitted to sell their homes, but the land
lease provisions require the home be sold back to the CLT or to another low-income homeowner
(Figure 66). Thus, the appreciation in home value is shared between the homeowner and the CLT,
with the CLT’s portion used to maintain affordability for future low and moderate-income families.
The Democracy Collaborative notes that the length of the land lease (typically 99 years) and the
percentage of the housing value appreciation earned by the homeowner vary across community land
trusts. 291

Figure 66. How A Community Land Trust Works

Source: Graziani, Land Banks and Community Land Trusts, p. 7.

The first community land trust in the United States was established in 1968 in rural Georgia.
According to a national survey of CLTs conducted by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy in 2006,
there were approximately 200 CLTs operating in every region and in 40 states and the District of
Columbia. The highest concentration of CLTs was found in the Northeast (37% of CLTs) and West
(29%); only 15 percent of CLTs were in the South. While a small number of CLTs were created in the
1970s, more than three out of four CLTs (76%) were created since 1990.
In terms of organizational characteristics, the study found eight out of ten CLTs were formed as a
CLT corporation, which have most of the key features of a community land trust as included in the
1992 amendments to the National Affordable Housing Act of 1990 (e.g., a membership organization
with a tri-partite board of directors—CLT homeowners, residents of the surrounding community,
and public officials, local funders, and nonprofit providers —acquires land to be held in perpetuity,
and ownership of any structural improvements on the land is held by the lessees). About one out of
five CLTs (19%) are CLTs operating within a nonprofit community-based or housing development
organization that has adopted many of the characteristics of a CLT, but typically not the
membership organization and tripartite governance features. In addition, several cities, such as

The Democracy Collaborative, “Overview: Community Land Trusts,” Available at https://community-

291

wealth.org/strategies/panel/clts/index.html.

181
Chicago, Irvine, California, and Delray Beach, Florida, have created or announced their intention to
create citywide CLTs.
Most (70%) CLTs serve multiple neighborhoods, an entire city or county, or in some instances
multiple counties. Overall, about 60 percent of CLTs serve urban areas, 31 percent serve suburban
areas, and about half (52%) serve rural areas or small towns. Eighty percent of CLTs have less than
100 housing units, including both homeownership and rental. Overall, more than half (55%) of CLTs
have both owner and renter units in their housing portfolio. Based on data provided by survey
respondents, the Lincoln Institute study found the number of CLT housing units was nearly evenly
split between homeownership units (3,220) and rental units (3,275). 292 The largest community land
trust was in Burlington, Vermont, which has 370 single-family homes and condominiums and 270
apartments whereas other CLTs had just a handful of housing units. 293
A subsequent 2011 survey by the Democracy Collaborative found nearly 250 CLTs across the U.S.
with nearly 10,000 housing units of which 79 percent were occupied by first-time homebuyers and 82
percent of CLT residents had incomes less than 50 percent of the area median. 294 In 2020 there were
277 community land trusts in the U.S. according to figures provided by the Democracy Collaborative.
Table 23 shows that only three of the counties included in the analysis have a community land trust:
Fulton (City of Atlanta), Jefferson, and Prince George’s.

Section 8 Homeownership Program

The Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 gave public housing authorities
permission to provide a homeownership option to families that receive Section 8 tenant-based or
Housing Choice Voucher assistance. Requirements for participation in the Section 8 Homeownership
program are that: 1) homeowners make a minimum downpayment of at least three percent of the
purchase price, with at least one percent coming from the family’s personal resources; 2) mortgage
financing be provided, insured, or guaranteed by the state or Federal government and in compliance
with mortgage underwriting standards; and 3) once a family is accepted into the program, the family
must attend homeownership counseling sessions. In turn, the public housing authority provides
homeownership housing assistance payments either directly to the family or to the lender on behalf
of the family. Generally, the term of the housing assistance payment is based on household type (e.g.,
elderly vs. family) and the structure of the mortgage: typically, assistance is provided for a period of
15 years with adjustments made annually based on family income and composition. Housing
authorities are entitled to capture a percentage of the homeownership assistance provided upon the
sale or refinancing of the home. 295
Table 23 shows that eight of the 11 counties included in the analysis currently have at least one low
income family assisted through their housing authority or a municipal housing authority enrolled in
the Housing Choice Voucher Homeownership Program according to HUD figures. 296 Prince George’s
County had the largest number of families (80) enrolled in 2021 followed by DeKalb County (43).

Yesim Sungu-Eryilmaz and Rosalind Greenstein, A National Study of Community Land Trusts, Cambridge,
292

MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Working Paper, 2007, p. 17. Available at.
Rosalind Greenstein and Yesim Sungu-Eryilmaz, “Community Land Trusts: Leasing Land for Affordable
293

Housing,” Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Land Lines, April 2005.

294 The Democracy Collaborative, “Overview: Community Land Trusts.”
295 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Section 8 Homeownership Program Final Rule,

Federal Register, Part IV, September 12, 2000, p. 55134.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Public and Indian Housing, Office of Housing Choice
296

Vouchers, HCV Homeownership Enrollment Report, retrieved February 26, 2022.

182
Section 6
Recommendations

Several trends and themes emerge from this analysis of affordable housing challenges and
opportunities in DeKalb County. This last section of the report briefly summarizes the major
findings as they pertain to DeKalb County and concludes with a set of recommendations guided by
these findings.

Summary of Major Findings

1. The major housing problem confronting low- and moderate-income households in
DeKalb County—and many households at or near the areawide median income—is
housing affordability.
According to the most recent data available at the time of this study, almost half of
DeKalb County renter households had a housing affordability problem with 25
percent reporting a cost burden (30% or more of household income for housing)
and 23 percent a severe cost burden (50% or more of household income for
housing). Overall, more than one out of three DeKalb households—owners and renters—
were housing cost burdened in 2018. Hispanic, Black, and Asian householders were more
likely to report a housing affordability problem than were non-Hispanic Whites.
The data, based on the American Community Survey 2015-2019 five-year estimates (Table
4, page 15) and HUD’s special tabulations of the 2014-2018 ACS (Table 24), clearly show
that the prevalence of the housing affordability problem is highest among lower income
households. Overall, eight out of ten extremely low income (less than 30% of areawide
median income) households had an affordability problem with more than seven out of ten
reporting they were severely cost-burdened. A similar share of very low income (30-50%
AMI) households reported a housing affordability problem. Among all low-income
categories (less than 80% AMI), seven out of ten households (69.8%) were housing cost
burdened as were more than one out of four moderate income households (80-100% AMI).
Overall, almost 100,000 households in DeKalb County were estimated to have a
housing affordability problem during the five-year period ending in 2018 with
about half facing a cost burden and half a severe housing cost burden.
To help connect numbers with faces, Figure 67 shows the considerable gaps large segments
of the Atlanta metro area population must close in order to be affordably housed. The table
uses figures compiled by the National Housing Conference’s Fall 2021 database to show
how far out of reach affordable housing is in both the homeowner and renter markets in the
Atlanta region for selected occupations. In terms of homeownership, the figure shows that
workers in a wide range of critical occupations that provide the backbone for the region’s
service, health, education, and first responder industries are well below the required
income to purchase the median home ($344,420 in Fall 2021) in the region and be
affordably housed. With a three percent down payment a family would need an annual
income of $92,912 to afford the median priced home; $98,073 with a 10 percent down
payment.

183
Table 24. Cost Burdened Households in DeKalb County by Income, 2018
Percent of households with
Number of households cost burden
Severe Severe
Cost Cost Cost Cost
Percent of area median income Total Burden Burden Burden Burden Total
Owner-occupied households
Less than 30 10,190 1,335 6,525 13.1 64 77.1
30 – 50 11,125 3,410 4,040 30.7 36.3 67.0
50 – 80 19,460 7,050 2,520 36.2 12.9 49.2
80 – 100 13,995 3,250 640 23.2 4.6 27.8
Greater than 100 96,070 5,525 725 5.8 0.8 6.5
Total 150,840 20,570 14,450 13.6 9.6 23.2

Renter-occupied households
Less than 30 26,130 2,215 18,455 8.5 70.6 79.1
30 – 50 21,015 10,685 8,080 50.8 38.4 89.3
50 – 80 26,185 13,205 2,170 50.4 8.3 58.7
80 – 100 14,515 3,710 190 25.6 1.3 26.9
Greater than 100 39,070 2,085 125 5.3 0.3 5.7
Total 126,915 31,900 29,020 25.1 22.9 48.0

Total households
Less than 30 36,320 3,550 24,980 9.8 68.8 78.6
30 – 50 32,140 14,095 12,120 43.9 37.7 81.6
50 – 80 45,645 20,255 4,690 44.4 10.3 54.7
80 – 100 28,510 6,960 830 24.4 2.9 27.3
Greater than 100 135,140 7,610 850 5.6 0.6 6.3
Total 277,755 52,470 43,470 18.9 15.7 34.5

Elderly households 59,745 10,940 10,475 18.3 17.5 35.8

Non-elderly households 218,010 41,535 33,009 19.1 15.1 34.2
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Comprehensive Housing Affordability
Strategy Data/U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey, Five-Year Estimates, 2014-2018

184
Figure 67. Housing Affordable Challenges in Metropolitan Atlanta, Selected Occupations, Fall 2021

Rental Market
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS $62,880
PARALEGALS AND LEGAL ASSISTANTS $52,780
POLICE AND SHERIFF'S PATROL OFFICERS $50,040
HEAVY AND TRACTOR-TRAILER TRUCK DRIVERS $49,320
FIREFIGHTERS $41,050
EMERGENCY MEDICAL TECHNICIANS AND… $37,500
OFFICE CLERKS $35,630
CUSTOMER SERVICE REPRESENTATIVES $34,690
CONSTRUCTION LABORERS $33,240
PHARMACY TECHNICIANS $32,150
LANDSCAPING AND GROUNDSKEEPING WORKERS $31,210
AMBULANCE DRIVERS AND ATTENDANTS $30,570
NURSING ASSISTANTS $28,850
PRESCHOOL TEACHERS $28,830
HOME HEALTH AND PERSONAL CARE AIDES $23,890
CASHIERS $22,510
MAIDS AND HOUSEKEEPERS $21,510
CHILDCARE WORKERS $19,870
FAST FOOD AND COUNTER WORKERS $19,620
WAITERS AND WAITRESSES $19,170
1BR 2BR 3BR
$- $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000

Homeownership Market
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS $62,880
PARALEGALS AND LEGAL ASSISTANTS $52,780
POLICE AND SHERIFF'S PATROL OFFICERS $50,040
HEAVY AND TRACTOR-TRAILER TRUCK DRIVERS $49,320
FIREFIGHTERS $41,050
EMERGENCY MEDICAL TECHNICIANS AND… $37,500
OFFICE CLERKS $35,630
CUSTOMER SERVICE REPRESENTATIVES $34,690
CONSTRUCTION LABORERS $33,240
PHARMACY TECHNICIANS $32,150
LANDSCAPING AND GROUNDSKEEPING WORKERS $31,210
AMBULANCE DRIVERS AND ATTENDANTS $30,570
NURSING ASSISTANTS $28,850
PRESCHOOL TEACHERS $28,830
HOME HEALTH AND PERSONAL CARE AIDES $23,890
CASHIERS $22,510
MAIDS AND HOUSEKEEPERS $21,510
CHILDCARE WORKERS $19,870
FAST FOOD AND COUNTER WORKERS $19,620
WAITERS AND WAITRESSES $19,170
3% 10%
$- $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000

Source: Analysis of National Housing Conference, Paycheck to Paycheck Database, Fall Quarter 2021
Vertical red lines show the affordability price (at 80% AMI) for various bedroom sizes (rental) and
purchase price with 3% and 10% down payment.

185
The income-affordability gap in the rental market is smaller, but still considerably out of
reach for most occupations shown. Only elementary school teachers earn enough to be
affordably housed in a one- or two-bedroom apartment and are about a thousand dollars
short of the income needed to be affordably housed in a three-bedroom apartment at the FY
2022 fair market rent. Pharmacy technicians, ambulance drivers and attendants, nursing
assistants, and preschool teachers, have annual salaries that cover only about 50-60
percent of the income required to be affordably housed in a two-bedroom apartment.
Childcare and food services workers earn less than half the income needed to be affordably
housed in a one-bedroom apartment.
Housing affordability is a countywide problem. The maps (see Figures 30-32 on pages
65-66) show that for the lowest income renter households (0-30%, 30-50% AMI), the
prevalence of housing affordability problems is substantial across all areas of the county.
Though the prevalence of housing affordability problems declines some for low-income
renter households (80% AMI), there are still substantial areas of the county where more
than half of the households are cost-burdened or severely cost-burdened. Moderate income
renter households (100% AMI) with housing affordability problems can be found in most
areas of the county with several census tracts showing a majority of households with cost or
severe cost burdens. Yet, when we examine the distribution of rental units, as opposed to
rental households, it appears that the county has a sufficient number of affordable rental
units for low income residents. The problem, however, is that many of these rental units
that would be affordable for low-income renter households are being rented by households
with higher incomes which constrains the supply of affordable and available rental units
for low-income renter households.

186
Figure 68. Comparison of Low-Income Cost-Burdened Renter Households and Affordable Rental Units at 80% AMI, 2019
DeKalb County Census Tracts

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey, 2015-2019 Five-Year Estimates.

187
2. The pandemic, accompanying economic slowdown, and recent
resurgence will likely increase the number of households facing
housing cost burdens.
Much of the data in this updated report is pre-pandemic. Over the past year we have seen dramatic
increases in housing prices, both home purchases and rents. The federal eviction moratoriums have
ended and the volume of evictions in DeKalb County have begun to move closer to their baseline pre-
pandemic levels, which averaged about 3,000 filings per month, about twice the level of filings per
month during the 12 months of the CDC’s eviction moratorium (Figure 69). Though emergency
rental assistance funds continue to be available, they will fall far short of meeting the demand for
assistance and not nearly enough to permanently shore up vulnerable households facing housing
instability. Similar trends can be found with foreclosure data: according to Equity Depot’s Atlanta
Foreclosure report, foreclosure filings in DeKalb County totaled 590 in calendar year 2021, which
was only 27 percent of the volume of foreclosure filings in 2019 (See Figure 18, page 51).

Figure 69. Eviction Filings, DeKalb County, January 2020 – January 2022
CARES Act Moratorium CDC Moratorium
3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0
Jul-20

Jul-21
Jun-20

Jun-21
Nov-20

Nov-21
Apr-20
May-20

Apr-21
May-21
Aug-20

Dec-20

Aug-21

Dec-21
Jan-22
Jan-20
Feb-20
Mar-20

Sep-20

Jan-21
Feb-21
Mar-21

Sep-21
Oct-20

Oct-21

Answered Filings Total filings Baseline (Total Filings)

Source: Analysis of data retrieved from Raymond, EL; Stein, S; Haley, V.; Woodworth, E; Zhang, G.; Siva, R;
Guhathakurta, S., Metro Atlanta Evictions Data Collective Database: Version 1.0. School of City and
Regional Planning: Georgia Institute of Technology, 2020,

188
3. A substantial share of the county’s affordable housing stock—subsidized and
unsubsidized—is at risk of loss over the coming decade.
A recent analysis by the Urban Institute found that among the nation’s largest counties,
three of the ten counties with the largest affordability gap for extremely low-income renters
were in metropolitan Atlanta: Gwinnett County had the largest gap in 2014 (only 14
affordable, available and adequate units per 100 ELI renters), Cobb County had the third
largest gap (18 AAA units per 100 ELI renters), and DeKalb County had the ninth largest
gap (24 AAA units per 100 ELI renters).
Our analysis of 2019 data on the rental housing stock (Table 12, page 86), the most
recent available at the time of this study, found there were only 18 affordable
rental units for every 100 extremely low-income renter households (30% AMI) and
only 46 affordable units for every 100 very low-income renter households (50%
AMI).
The affordability gap between the supply of available units and the demand for those units
among low and moderate-income households is being driven by both changes in the supply
of subsidized housing and in the decreasing availability of non-subsidized affordable
housing. Our analysis of data from the National Affordable Housing Database found that
there are currently about 22,000 renter households in DeKalb County receiving some type
of federal subsidy as of December 2021: 14,602 renter households reside in rental units
where the subsidy is tied to the apartment, with more than eight out of ten of these units
receiving assistance from the Low Income Housing Tax Credit program and about one out
of four assisted units having a Section 8 or Project-Based Voucher subsidy. Another 7,400
renter households in DeKalb County are receiving a tenant-based Housing Choice Voucher
from a local public housing authority.

DeKalb County, however, has a much higher exposure to subsidized units at risk of loss
over the next 10 years (Figure 51, page 97). In DeKalb County, the rate of subsidized
homes at risk is more than twice the national rate, with one in four publicly
supported homes (24%) facing an expiring subsidy within the next 10 years
compared to only 10 percent nationally. This is the second highest percentage of units
at risk of loss over the next 10 years among the 11 counties included in the analysis.
Regarding “naturally occurring” affordable housing (i.e., market rate units that are
affordable), DeKalb County has been particularly hard hit by the loss of smaller
apartment buildings over the past 10 years, many of which had provided
affordable rents to low- and moderate-income households. Between 2010 and 2019,
about 4,500 rental units in buildings with 2-19 units were lost and their share of the rental
market declined from 55 percent to 44 percent (Table 11, page 64).
While the total number of rental units in the county increased by 17 percent between 2010
and 2019, the county’s rental market continued to transform during this period, with much
larger shares of rentals now found in single-family homes and larger apartment buildings
(20 units or more). Moreover, the availability of affordable rentals in DeKalb County has
shrunk considerably over the last decade, due largely to the loss of more than 28,000 rental
units with rents under $1,000 and an increase of nearly 43,000 units with rents of $1,000 or
more (Table 3, page 11). In addition, the long-term rental market has also been hit hard
over the past few years by an increasing volume of investor-owned housing purchases and
short-term rentals. A recent analysis by the Washington Post found that Atlanta and

189
 Charlotte had the highest rates of investor home purchases in 2021, one of every four home
sales, among the 40 metropolitan areas included in their analysis (page 121). Another
recent study reported that investors purchased a majority of all homes sold in 2021 in six
DeKalb County zip codes, all of them majority Black areas (page 123).

4. Federal housing assistance for low- and moderate-income households declined

substantially over the past decade.
Federal outlays for low-income housing and community development programs
declined by 21.3 percent in nominal terms between 2010 and 2019, 33.3 percent in
constant dollars. These reductions included declines in federal outlays in constant dollars
for CDBG (-38%), the HOME partnership program (-78%), homelessness assistance (-62%),
public housing (-44%), and housing vouchers (-11%), all of which were important tools used
by county and municipal governments to create and preserve affordable housing. 297
Tax expenditures in support of housing assistance were also hit hard during this period.
Overall, the federal outlay equivalent of tax credits and deductions in support of housing
declined from $118 billion in 2010 to $49.7 billion in 2019 (a 58% decline in nominal dollars,
64% decline in constant dollars), with most of the decline attributed to changes to the
mortgage interest deduction and deductibility of state and local taxes paid on owner-
occupied homes that were part of the Trump administration’s Tax Cut and Jobs Act passed
at the end of 2017. These provisions, however, predominantly benefitted middle- and upper-
income households. The past decade also saw declines in the outlay equivalents of tax
expenditures for the exclusion of interest on housing bonds (-46% for owner-occupied
housing, -17% for renter-occupied housing) while credits for low-income housing
investments (LIHTC) doubled and accelerated depreciation on rental housing increased by
64 percent in constant dollars. 298
One consequence of these funding cuts is that the total number of low-income households
receiving housing assistance through the federal government’s rental assistance programs,
which has held fairly steady at around five million households since 2001, has dropped
from 4.9 million households in 2010 to 4.6 million households through the end of FY 2020
based on HUD’s most recent annual performance report. 299
In DeKalb County, the county’s CDBG entitlement declined from $6.2 million in 2010 to
$5.2 million in 2019, a decline of 16 percent in nominal dollars and a 29 percent decline in
constant dollars. Cuts to the county’s HOME program were even deeper—a 30 percent
decline in nominal dollars and 59 percent decline in real dollars.
The pandemic and the federal government’s response have brought considerable new
federal resources to shore up the ability of state and local governments to meet the needs of
their most vulnerable residents. Most of these new resources have come in the form of
federal stimulus payments to individuals, enhanced and extended unemployment

297Figures computed from U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Historical Tables, Budget of the United
States Government, Fiscal Year 2019.
298 Figures computed from U.S. Department of Treasury, Office of Tax Policy, Tax Expenditures, various years.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Fiscal Year 2020 Annual Performance Report,
299

Washington, D.C.: January 15, 2021. See also Maggie McCarty, Katie Jones, and Libby Perl, Overview of
Federal Housing Assistance Programs and Policy, Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service, Updated
March 27, 2019.

190
 compensation, and emergency rental assistance. Federal funding for conventional housing
and community development programs, however, also increased. Federal outlays for
community development programs (CDBG) increased by 76 percent between 2020 and
2021, rising from $5.2 billion to $9.2 billion. Federal outlays for housing block grants
(HOME) increased 40 percent, outlays for public housing were up 19 percent, and
homelessness assistance doubled between 2020 and 2021. On the tax expenditure side,
outlay equivalents for the exclusion of interest on housing bonds and credit for low-income
housing investments (LIHTC) were all above their pre-pandemic levels in 2021.
Perhaps most notable, the American Rescue Plan, passed in March 2021, provides $350
billion in federal aid to state and local governments through State and Local Fiscal
Recovery Funds (SLFRF) that can be used to address a wide range of problems, including
housing affordability. The SLFRF dollars are more flexible than traditional federal grants
and can be used for “programs or services to support long-term housing security including
development of affordable housing and permanent supportive housing.” Table 25 provides
a summary of the types of housing activities local governments can support with their
SLFRF dollars. 300
A recent analysis by the National Association of Counties regarding county uses of ARPA
funds found that the top three investment categories were health programs (79% of ARPA
county plans reviewed), human services (68%), and transportation and infrastructure
including water and sewer (57%). Almost half (43%) of the county plans reviewed also
included investments to support affordable housing and homelessness services. 301 DeKalb
County, GA, received $147 million in ARPA funds, and SLFRF guidelines require those
funds to be committed by December 31, 2024 and spent by December 31, 2026. According
to DeKalb County’s 2021 Interim Report, as of July 31, 2021, the county has made
cumulative obligations and expenditures of $813,811. Activities funded included COVID-19
testing and communications ($461,000) and emergency food programs ($353,000). 302 The
county’s Recovery Plan Status Report and Recovery Plan were not yet posted on the
Treasury web portal.
The SLFRF dollars and upturn in federal housing and community development allocations
represent a “once-in-a-generation opportunity” for local governments to assess their local
housing needs, establish clear priorities, and appropriate resources to meet them, though
as policy analysts at the Brookings Institution’s Center for Metropolitan Studies recently
pointed out, “even with ARP’s unprecedented scale, local governments will not have enough
money to pay for every item on their wish list. Policymakers must be intentional about
choosing investments, basing decisions on data whenever possible.” 303

U.S. Department of the Treasury, Coronavirus State & Local Fiscal Recovery Funds: Overview of the Final
300

Rule, Washington, D.C., January 2022.

301The analysis was based on a review of 200 Recovery Plan Performance Reports submitted by counties with
populations of 250,000 or more. Teryn Zmuda, NACo County Explorer: How Counties are Investing Coronavirus
Recovery Funds,” Washington, D.C.: NACO, December 21, 2021.
DeKalb County, Interim Report, Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, Retrieved March 14,
302

2022.
Rushaine Goulbourne, Cassidy Pearson, and Jenny Schuetz, “Getting the Most Out of American Rescue Plan
303

Housing Funds Requires Local Governments to Plan Ahead,” The Brookings Institution, March 2, 2022.

191
Table 25. Permitted Uses of SLFRF Dollars to Support Housing Programs

Affordable Housing
Household Financial Homelessness/Displacement Development and
Assistance Prevention and Services Rehabilitation

• One-time rental • Counseling to prevent • Affordable housing

assistance foreclosure or development
displacement
• Housing voucher • Acquistion, rehabilitation,
programs • Counseling and legal aid and conversion of vacant
for homelessness properties for affordable
• Mortgage payment
prevention housing
assistance and service
fees • Specialized housing • Rehabilitation and repair of
services for populations public housing
• Down payment assistance
at risk for homelessness
• Programs to support
• Home repairs and
• Case management sustainable
weatherization (owner-
related to housing homeownership
and renter-occupied)
stability
• Supportive housing
• Emergency assistance for
(development and
individuals experiencing
operating expenses)
homelessness
• Relocation expenses
following eviction or
foreclosure
• Utility costs or arrears for
both renters and
homeowners

Source: Ibid. Table adapted from Rushaine Goulbourne, Cassidy Pearson, and Jenny Schuetz, “Getting the
Most Out of American Rescue Plan Housing Funds Requires Local Governments to Plan Ahead,” The
Brookings Institution, March 2, 2022.

5. Local (and state) action, particularly efforts that foster collaborative,

cross-sector, community-based partnerships will be essential for
meaningful progress in addressing the affordable housing challenge.
As Bruce Katz and Jennifer Bradley observed in their 2013 book The Metropolitan
Revolution, written in the aftermath of the Great Recession, “cities and metropolitan areas
are on their own. The cavalry is not coming. Mired in partisan division and rancor, the
federal government appears incapable of taking bold action to restructure our economy and
grapple with changing demography and rising inequality.” They add that “the metropolitan
revolution is ambitious but is eminently doable” and requires five essential steps: “build

192
 your network; set your vision; find your game changer; bankroll the revolution; and sustain
the gain.” 304
In a subsequent volume Katz and Jeremy Nowak write about a “New Localism” that
reflects a 21st century approach to problem solving, one that is an “urgently needed remedy
for national dysfunction.” Katz and Nowak focus their book on cities, but their observations
and recommendations certainly apply as well to county governments as they point out that
“cities and counties are solving problems because they can.” They emphasize that
governance is a key ingredient and local jurisdictions that are leading the way are doing so
by “catalyzing growth through forms of governance that align the distinctive perspectives of
government, business, philanthropy, universities, and the broader community. Governance
is being driven by collaboration rather than coercion, stewarded by diverse networks rather
than by elected decisionmakers alone, and characterized by iterative problem solving
rather than by rigid and prescriptive rulemaking. Governance is also being exercised by
new institutions that are designed to leverage public legitimacy of government with the
entrepreneurialism of the private and civic sectors.” 305
As we noted in the opening section of this report, there is no magic solution to the
affordable housing challenge. While it is unlikely that the federal government will
completely retreat from the affordable housing
policy domain, it is clear that state and local
governments will need to play a stronger role in
The major challenge mobilizing resources and coordinating action.
the county faces in This will require the creation of new
institutions capable of designing, executing,
moving its affordable and evaluating collective impact initiatives that
bring together a broad group of stakeholders,
housing efforts forward reach consensus on a collective agenda, define
is broadening, clear benchmarks for measuring progress, align
the activities of multiple agencies and
deepening, and organizations in support of the collective effort,
connecting its efforts, communicate clearly among all stakeholders,
and increase the capacity of the collaborative
particularly in ways participants to work better together. In an
update to their seminal 2011 article, John
that engage a broader Kania and Mark Kramer have revised their
group of stakeholders collective impact principles to include eight
additional principles of practice for carrying out
in a comprehensive collective impact initiatives, with emphasis on
affordable housing “engaging community members and placing a
priority on equity.” 306
strategy. The analysis in this report shows that DeKalb
County generally compares favorably with

304Bruce Katz and Jennifer Bradley, The Metropolitan Revolution, (Washington, D.C.: The Brookings
Institution, 2013), pp. 3 and 94.
Bruce Katz and Jeremy Nowak, The New Localism: How Cities Can Thrive in the Age of Populism,
305

(Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 2017), pp. 2-3.

306John Kania, Junious Williams, Paul Schmitz, Sheri Brady, Mark Kramer and Jennifer Splansky Juster,
“Centering Equity in Collective Impact,” Stanford Social Innovation Review, Winter 2022: 38-45.

193
 other large urban counties in the greater Atlanta area and beyond regarding its utilization
of federal resources for affordable housing. With approximately 22,000 units of publicly-
assisted housing, DeKalb’s effort is only exceeded by Fulton County (54,459) among the 11
counties included in this study. Though DeKalb allocates a much smaller share of its CDBG
funds for housing than the other urban counties we examined, its use of HOME and NSP
funds compare very favorably to the other counties. DeKalb’s HOME funds have provided a
relatively balanced approach to increasing the supply of affordable housing through
homebuyer, home rehabilitation, and rental housing development activities. DeKalb
County received substantially more NSP funding than most of the other counties included
in the analysis and based on an independent assessment of the county’s program, achieved
substantial leverage from its acquisition, rehabilitation, and resale of foreclosed, single-
family homes. According to the study, DeKalb’s NSP activities increased home values by
more than $141 million across all single-family homes in the county’s NSP target
neighborhoods, which was equivalent to a leverage ratio of 16 to 1. 307 Regarding the
adoption of various affordable housing strategies, DeKalb County’s activities also match up
well to the 10 comparison counties included in the study.
The major challenge the county faces in moving its affordable housing efforts forward is
broadening, deepening, and connecting its efforts, particularly in ways that engage a
broader group of stakeholders in a comprehensive affordable housing strategy. Several
communities across the country—including many urban counties—have recently completed
affordable housing strategic plans or are in the process of doing so. 308 Examples include
Prince George’s County’s Housing Opportunity for All comprehensive housing strategy; The
Preservation Compact in Cook County, Illinois; the King County (Seattle, WA) Regional
Affordable Housing Task Force; the Boulder County (Colorado) Regional Housing
Partnership; and the Washington County (Portland, Oregon metro area) Affordable
Housing Development Strategy, among others. In California, for example, several regional
collaborations have been formed at the city, county, and multi-county level to plan and even
pool funding and organizational resources. 309
Closer to home, in January 2018 a broad group of public, private, nonprofit, philanthropic,
civic, and community leaders came together and met regularly over the course of several
months to develop a comprehensive housing strategy for the city of Atlanta, generating a
set of recommendations, many of which were incorporated into the City of Atlanta’s One
Atlanta Housing Affordability Action Plan, released in June 2019. 310 Many of the key
participants in that effort are now working to facilitate a regional affordable housing
strategy, connecting with key leaders and stakeholders in the region’s counties and
municipalities.

Atlanta Neighborhood Development Partnership, DeKalb County Neighborhood Stabilization Program

307

Impact on Families and Communities, Atlanta, GA: Report prepared for the DeKalb County Department of
Community Development, September 2017.
See, for example, Jonathan Harris, Stacy Nakintu, and Aaron Ridings, Affordable Housing: Toolkit for
308

Counties, National Association of Counties, March 1, 2019.

309Robert Weiner and Darryl Rutherford, “Developing a Regional Affordable Housing Strategy: A Look at
California’s Housing Challenges and Ingredients Needed for a Successful Regional Strategy,” White Paper 2009-
01, University of California, Davis, Center for Regional Change, May 2008.
310Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms, One Atlanta Housing Affordability Action Plan, Atlanta, GA: City of Atlanta,
Office of the Mayor, June 2019. For a review of HouseATL’s work and recommendations see houseatl.org.

194
 Recently several national organizations have developed web-based resources to facilitate
collaborative, cross-sector, community-based approaches for assessing, planning, and
taking action to promote comprehensive and collaborative approaches for meeting the
affordable housing challenges. These include:
• Local Housing Solutions. A community of practice comprised of many of the nation’s
leading experts and practitioners in housing policy with additional contributions
from a national advisory council. The web site provides step-by-step guidance for
cities and counties on how to develop a comprehensive local housing strategy.
• National Association of Counties, Toolkit for Counties. In addition to demographic
and housing market data, this site provides profiles of a variety of solutions and
approaches taken by counties and other local governments across the country.
These include inter-jurisdictional partnerships, funding and financing, planning
and zoning, and advocacy.
• The Brookings Institution, Housing Policy Matchmaker. Developed as a diagnostic
tool for local government officials, this site provides a typology of local housing
markets and then suggests a variety of policy solutions that best fit that local
context.
Local governments, particularly county governments, need to be central actors in the resolution
of the affordable housing challenges facing neighborhoods and communities. As Jenny Schuetz
points out in her recent book, Fixer Upper, “local governments have policy tools available that
can influence housing demand (to a certain extent) and supply within their jurisdictions. Some
of the tools mirror or overlap with those used by federal and state governments (designing tax
strategies and subsidies), but several are unique to local governments, notably designing and
enforcing land use plans.” 311 Examples of these policy tools are listed in Table 26.

Jenny Schuetz, Fixer-Upper: How to Repair America’s Broken Housing Systems, (Washington, D.C.: The
311

Brookings Institution, 2022), p. 130.

195
Table 26. Policy Tools Available to Local Governments to Influence Housing Outcomes
Policy Area Planning and Policy
Design
Land use Planning and zoning for
housing, nonresidential
uses, transportation,
infrastructure
Fiscal policy Set tax rates and fee
structure
Climate resilience Develop climate
mitigation, adaptation,
and emergency response
strategies
Building stock Update building code
management
Historic preservation
Develop and manage
subsidized housing
Housing subsidies Design local subsidies
Homelessness outreach
Inclusionary zoning
Homebuyer assistance
Tenant protection
Source: Adapted from Jenny Schuetz, Fixer-Upper, p. 132.
196
Administer and Enforce
Policies
Manage development
process, issue permits,
zoning variances
Collect taxes and fees;
update property
assessments
Upgrade public buildings,
administer grants
Inspect new development,
monitor existing buildings
Record property sales,
deed transfers, and
mortgages
Administer state and
federal subsidies (CDBG,
HOME, housing vouchers)
Compliance with
inclusionary zoning
Adjudicate landlord -
tenant complaints
Administer rent
regulation
 Recommendations
The main obstacle to better housing outcomes is not lack of knowledge about
policy recommendations. Persuading elected officials and voters to support
needed policy changes is hard, because these choices all involve complex
tradeoffs—exactly the debates that arise at community meetings across the
country. . . .
These are not just technical problems for city planners and real estate
developers, or theoretical conundrums for academics. Fundamentally, they are
political issues that weigh up competing claims between different
constituencies, including the thorny question of whether some people’s
financial interests or aesthetic preferences matter more than other people’s
access to basic shelter. . . .
But the only way we can move toward a better future is to present Americans
with an honest, direct assessment of our current problems and concrete
proposals for reform. 312
Jenny Schuetz, Fixer-Upper, 2022

As a means for jumpstarting the creation of a comprehensive affordable housing strategy for DeKalb
County, we offer the following recommendations presented in three sections: Get Organized, Develop
Strategies, and Take Action.

Get Organized:
DeKalb County Should Take a Leadership Role on Affordable Housing

Cities and counties are solving problems because they can. The nature of
problem solving is changing, further reinforcing the growing preference for
local responses. Tackling complex issues such as [affordable housing] . . .
should work toward solutions . . . that are characterized by multidisciplinary
and multisectoral networks rather than by the narrow, specialized silos of
federal or state bureaucracies.
Bruce Katz and Jeremy Nowak, The New Localism, 2017

1. Establish a county affordable housing officer. Many local governments have created a
point person for furthering affordable housing strategies. These positions are comparable in
scope and function to a local government’s chief sustainability officer or chief technology officer.
Examples include the Chief Impact Officer Affordable Housing at the Housing Trust Silicon
Valley (San Jose, CA); 313 the Chief Strategy Officer, San Diego Housing Commission; 314 the

312 Jenny Schuetz, Fixer-Upper: How to Repair America’s Broken Housing Systems, (Washington, DC: The

Brookings Institution, 2022), pp. 159-167.

313Housing Trust Silicon Valley, Chief Impact Officer Affordable Housing, Available at
https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/view/chief-impact-officer-affordable-housing-at-housing-trust-silicon-valley-
528746952.
314 http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/economy/sd-fi-outlook-ruane-20170218-story.html

197
 Chief Executive Officer of Affordable Housing, Twin Cities (Minnesota); 315 and the Chief
Housing Officer, City of Denver, Office of Economic Development. 316

2. Establish a cross-sector, collaborative advisory committee on affordable housing

comprised of a broad group of affordable housing stakeholders. As noted above,
several counties and cities have recently established advisory committees and task forces to
assist in the development of comprehensive affordable housing strategies. These groups tend
to be comprised of a broad group of stakeholders that bring a variety of different perspectives
to the affordable housing challenge and include, among others, representatives from:

• Public sector: County elected and administrative officials; Mayors, council members
from municipalities; Public housing authorities; Public schools; State and regional
agency officials; Federal regional officials;

• Housing industry and business groups: Local developers, lenders; Fair housing
advocates and housing coalitions; Homeowners or renters associations; Landlords;

• Nonprofit and community-based groups: Residents; Residents with assisted housing

(project-based and tenant-based); Senior citizens/senior citizens groups;

• Local foundations/philanthropic organizations;

• Colleges and universities;

• Economic development: Economic development agencies; Landowners; Business

owners; Chamber of commerce;

• Transportation agencies and organizations: MARTA; Atlanta Regional Commission

(MPO); Public transportation advocates; Bike/pedestrian advocates; Disability rights
organizations.

Examples:
• Prince George’s County (MD) Housing Opportunity for All. The Prince
George’s County Council passed a resolution in 2016 creating the Housing
Opportunities for All Workgroup, which was established to assist the county
in developing and carrying out a framework for addressing its affordable
housing challenges. After three years of collaborative work between county
officials, members of the workgroup, and other key stakeholders, the county
developed and released Housing Opportunity for All, its ten-year
comprehensive housing strategy in March 2019.
• King County (WA) Regional Affordable Housing Task Force. In 2016,
King County initiated a process that led to the creation of a Regional

315 https://www.minnpost.com/politics-policy/2017/07/latest-way-local-governments-are-trying-combat-twin-
cities-affordable-housin
https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/view/chief-housing-officer-office-of-economic-development-at-city-of-denver-
316

589819888

198
 Affordable Housing Task Force in 2017 that brought together county and city
(Seattle) elected officials to develop a regional strategy for addressing housing
affordability. Over 18 months the task force heard from regional experts on
housing as well as from members of a Standing Advisory Panel comprised of
key stakeholders from the public, private, and nonprofit, sectors. In December
2018 the Task Force concluded its work and presented a final report and Five-
Year Action Plan. The Task Force adopted a “Statement of Intent” that
prioritizes actions that support “building, preserving, or subsidizing 244,000
net new healthy homes countywide by 2040” to meet the projected need of
households with income at or below 80 percent of areawide median income.
Goal 1 of the action plan was to “create and support an ongoing structure for
regional collaboration” that was immediately accomplished with the creation
of an Affordable Housing Committee and the launching of a Regional
Affordable Housing Dashboard to monitor progress on implementing the
action plan.
• Arlington County (VA) Affordable Housing Study Working Group. The
Study Working Group was appointed by the County Manager in 2013 to help
shape the community vision for Affordable Housing in Arlington. It is
comprised of 18 community members representing a diversity of interests and
drawn from 12 County commissions and the broader Arlington community.
The Working Group meets monthly; Task Forces drawn from Working Group
members also meet regularly to discuss specific topics and to develop
recommendations.
• Montgomery County (MD) Affordable Housing Task Force. In March
2007, the County Executive appointed a Task Force to examine the affordable
housing issues in Montgomery County and make recommendations. The Task
Force’s mission was to advise the County Executive on strategies to increase
the availability of affordable housing in the county, including: (1) Review
affordable housing “best practices” from around the country and determine
their applicability to Montgomery County based on affordable housing needs
in Montgomery County; (2). Propose other creative solutions to address
Montgomery County’s affordable housing needs; and (3). Develop and assist in
the implementation of strategies to educate the public around the necessity of
providing a full range of housing choices that will sustain and enhance the
economic vitality and quality of life in Montgomery County.
• City of Pittsburgh, Affordable Housing Task Force. This task force is
charged with assessing the current and projected future landscape of housing
affordability in the City of Pittsburgh, evaluating current programs and
initiatives to produce new affordable units and preserve existing ones, and
making recommendations to the Mayor and City Council.
• James City County Workforce and Affordable Housing Task Force.
The role of the Workforce Housing Task Force is to evaluate data, programs
and efforts that affect affordable and workforce housing within James City
County; assess strategies, best practices and initiatives to address the
affordable and workforce housing needs; and make recommendations to the
Board of Supervisors on strategies to address affordable and workforce
housing challenges.

199
 • Spokane Regional Affordable Housing Task Force. To ensure the long-
term availability of affordable housing for our area’s citizens, the City of
Spokane, Spokane County and the City of Spokane Valley established a 20-
member task force comprised of key representatives from the non-profit, for
profit, and local government sector. The five work items of the task force were
to: 1) improve methods of identifying affordable housing needs by different
groups; 2) maximize the use of current housing resources; 3) explore the
creation of new local housing resources and other funding options; 4) establish
regional affordable housing goals and an implementation strategy; 5) establish
a public education program.

3. Establish a comprehensive data and information system to track housing

conditions and needs in DeKalb County and prepare and disseminate a regular
report on housing trends and conditions.
Examples:
• Washington, DC’s Housing in the Nation’s Capitol
• Arlington County (VA) annual report on affordable housing
• Greater Boston Housing Report Card (since 2002)
• State of New York City’s Housing and Neighborhoods
• Louisville (KY) State of Metropolitan Housing Report
• Nashville-Davidson County Housing Report

4. Connect with other efforts in the county’s municipalities and the greater Atlanta
region to promote and sustain affordable housing. In addition to taking a deeper dive
into the affordable housing challenges in DeKalb County, it is important for the county to be
active in related efforts in the county’s municipalities as well as neighboring jurisdictions,
regional and statewide efforts. Currently, such efforts include:
• The TransFormation Alliance: Atlanta Regional Commission, Enterprise
Community Partners, Georgia Stand-Up, MARTA, Partnership for Southern
Equity, Southface Energy Institute, SUMMECH Community Development
Corporation, Urban Land Institute, Atlanta WonderRoot
• The Atlanta Regional Housing Forum: Managed and convened by the
Atlanta Neighborhood Development Partnership and Atlanta Regional
Commission.
• Brookhaven Affordable Housing Task Force. A thirteen-member task
force formed by the city council to address affordable housing issues in
Brookhaven. Recommendations were presented to the city council in July 2017.
• Brookhaven-Doraville-Chamblee Affordable Housing Task Force.
Municipal officials, representatives from nonprofit and advocacy organizations,
and concerned citizens have been meeting regularly over the past couple of
years to explore common concerns regarding affordable housing in the
neighborhoods along the Buford Highway corridor.

200
 • City of Chamblee Affordable Housing Strategy. Chamblee has engaged a
housing consultant to advise the city on creating a strategy to ensure that
housing at a variety of price points will be available in the city.
• City of Decatur Affordable Housing Task Force. In 2019, the city of
Decatur convened the Affordable Housing Task Force which issued a report in
February 2020 with recommendations for new policies, programs, and
initiatives to create and preserve affordable and workforce housing in the city.

Develop Strategies:
Provide a Strategic Vision and Direction for Affordable Housing
The interconnectedness among the various solutions for increasing affordable housing emphasize the
need to think holistically. Single solutions, by themselves, while important, are only a piece of a
much bigger puzzle. The challenge for local stakeholders is assembling those pieces in a way that
brings into focus “the realization as soon as feasible of the goal of a decent home and a suitable living
environment for every American family.” 317

1. Create a strategic plan for affordable housing that addresses needs, strategies and
programs, resources, sets priorities, and identifies key target groups and
geographic areas. Many local governments, including several counties, have created
affordable housing strategic plans to foster comprehensive, coordinated actions for
addressing the many facets of the affordable housing challenge. Such plans have served to
mobilize resources, focus and align programs and activities, and engage a broad group of
stakeholders. The county’s upcoming Consolidated Plan renewal may provide an opportunity
for launching an affordable housing strategic plan.
Examples:
• Boulder County Regional Housing Partnership strategic plan
• Prince George’s County, Comprehensive Housing Strategy
• Orange County (CA) Affordable Housing Strategic Plan, 2015
• Fairfax County (VA) Housing Strategic Plan

2. Assess the availability of affordable housing and need for new investment
regarding the balance of housing for senior citizens, disabled, and special needs
populations with affordable housing for families. One of the challenges of addressing
affordable housing is affordable for whom? At what point on the income continuum should
the county focus its efforts—below 30 percent AMI? 30-50 percent AMI? 50-80 percent AMI?
80-120 percent AMI? What should the balance be between housing assistance for families
and for the elderly? For special needs populations? Between owner-occupied housing and
rental housing?

The nation’s national housing goal as set forth in the Housing Act of 1949, Public Law 81-171,
317

Sec. 2., July 15, 1949.

201
 Based on our analysis of data from conventional sources (Census, American Community
Survey, HUD’s Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy estimates, among others) the
most acute affordability needs are found among households with income less than 50 percent
of the areawide median income as about eight out of ten households are cost-burdened
(Figure 26, page 69). This holds for both owner-occupied and rental housing. More than half
(55%) of households with income between 50 and 80 percent of AMI have housing
affordability problems and more than one out of four households with income between 80 and
100 percent of AMI have a housing affordability problem.

These data sources, however, are rather coarse and generally provide five-year snapshots,
which make it more difficult to identify trends in rapidly changing housing markets. A more
detailed assessment that incorporates housing market information from proprietary sources
may be warranted to get a sharper picture of the balance between housing supply and
demand in the county by income group, household type, and special needs populations.

3. Think comprehensively. Addressing the county’s affordable housing challenge will

require more than just expanding the supply of affordable housing units. The
county should also be developing an income strategy—that is weaving together
housing solutions with investments and programs in education, vocational and
technical education, job training, economic development, work supports such as
child care and the Earned Income Tax Credit, transportation, and the like to
improve the quality of life for DeKalb County residents. There are many exemplary
place-based strategies that could serve as models for improving the income trajectories of
low- and moderate-income households and improving the quality of the neighborhoods in
which they live. These include, among others:
• LISC/Chicago New Communities Program. Launched by the MacArthur
Foundation and Local Initiative Support Corporation’s Chicago Office, the New
Communities program was a comprehensive community initiative designed to
improve outcomes for in more than a dozen Chicago neighborhoods. The foundation
of the NCP was a community-based planning process that lead to the development of
Quality of Life Plans in each neighborhood. Though the neighborhood plans often
focused on similar issues—affordable housing, education and youth development,
economic development, public safety, health, arts and culture, environment and
sustainability, among others—each plan was tailored to the unique needs and assets
of the neighborhood. The plans became a blueprint for neighborhood transformation
and a magnet for funding. According to the final impact evaluation, MacArthur’s ten-
year, $50 million investment leveraged over $900 million in total funding across the
14 New Communities neighborhoods. Neighborhoods that developed strong local
intermediary organizations capable of managing a comprehensive planning process
and coordinating actions among many local partners across a wide range of issues
were most successful in leveraging additional funding. 318

318David Greenberg, Sonya Williams, Mikael Karlstrom, Victoria Quiroz-Becerra, and Marcia Festen, The
Promise of Comprehensive Community Development: Ten Years of Chicago’s New Communities Program (New
York: MDRC, August 2014).

202
 • Strengthen/expand the DeKalb Sustainable Neighborhoods Initiative
(DSNI). In April 2012, DeKalb County launched the DeKalb Sustainable
Neighborhoods Initiative, modeled after Chicago’s New Communities program. The
lead partners for DSNI included the county’s departments of Community
Development, Economic Development, Planning and Sustainability, and Police
Services. Other key partners included DeKalb County Schools, DeKalb Workforce
Development, DeKalb County Board of Health, and One DeKalb. Four high school
clusters serving areas within the county that were eligible for HUD-funded programs
were selected to participate and each cluster has completed a Quality of Life plan and
undertaken small seed grant projects. The participating clusters are Columbia, Cross
Keys, McNair, and Towers. Emory University’s Center for Community Partnerships
and its Community Building and Social Change Fellows program provided planning
and technical assistance support to the clusters in developing their Quality of Life
Plans. The community response to the initiative has been very strong, though efforts
at moving forward with the implementation of many of the priorities listed in the
cluster plans has been stalled by insufficient funding. DSNI provides an important
platform for undertaking community-based comprehensive initiatives in DeKalb
County, though it will require additional funding and non-governmental partners if it
is to fully achieve its potential.
• Purpose Built Communities. Purpose Built Communities was founded in 2009 to
replicate the “East Lake Model,” a holistic transformation of a former public housing
project into a new mixed income housing community along with a new charter school,
YMCA, and a variety of youth development and family wellness programs. Purpose
Built is currently working in the East Lake, Grove Park, and South Atlanta
neighborhoods in the city of Atlanta as well as in neighborhoods in 23 other cities
across the country. 319 Like the New Communities Program, the Purpose Built
Communities model requires a strong neighborhood intermediary for bringing
together a broad group of stakeholders to foster neighborhood transformation.
• TriStar Community Partners. TriStar is a for-profit Georgia company founded in
2013 that has developed a broad-based, scalable, and sustainable affordable
housing/education model for families living at or below the poverty line. 320 The model
is based on the integration of affordable housing, affordable health care and wellness
programs, and education. A key component of TriStar’s model, which relies on social
impact investing, is reducing transiency, which has proven to be a formidable barrier
to academic success, by preserving and upgrading the quality of the affordable
housing stock near low-performing schools. TriStar currently has two projects
underway in the greater Atlanta area: Madison Hills Apartments-Brumby
Elementary School in Cobb County and Willow Branch Apartments-Indian Creek
Elementary School in DeKalb County and is currently exploring opportunities for
additional work in several low-performing elementary school’s on Atlanta’s westside.

• Pathways in Technology Early College High Schools (P-TECH). P-TECH

schools, launched with the support of the IBM Corporation working together with
educators, policymakers, and elected officials, are innovative public schools that span

319Purpose Built Communities, “What are the common causes of distressed neighborhoods and what can be
done to reverse these dynamics without creating displacement?”, Accessed March 18, 2022
320 TriStar Community Impact Fund, A Socially Responsible Housing Investment, Accessed March 18, 2022.

203
 grades 9 to 14. 321 Within six years, students graduate with a high school degree and a
no-cost associate degree in applied science or a related STEM field. Industry partners
ensure that students graduate career-ready by providing site visits, mentoring, and
paid internships. Since its initial launch in Brooklyn, New York in 2011 with one
school, there are currently more than 210 P-TECH schools in the U.S. supported by
more than 420 business and 98 college partners. These schools offer career tracks in
advanced manufacturing, clean technologies, cybersecurity, engineering, health,
STEM, and other high demand industries. School curricula are aligned with the
Common Core standards, Next Generation Science standards, and state standards,
as appropriate. In addition, each school creates a “college ready” academic standard
and ensures that graduates have workplace readiness skills. One recent story on P-
TECH schools noted they were “rebuilding the high school to middle class pipeline,”
and graduates were often “first in line” for middle skill jobs at premier employers like
IBM with starting salaries “upwards of $50,000.” 322

Take Action:
Mobilize Additional Resources for Affordable Housing in DeKalb County

Housing affordability is a challenge that counties across the country are facing
now and will continue to face in the future. Since each county is unique, there
is no “one-size-fits-all” solution to housing affordability that every county can
implement. Rather, county leaders will continue to work with local
communities to develop solutions that best fit their situation. County
governments should take advantage of the numerous tools available to them by
utilizing a combination of inter-jurisdictional partnerships, community
engagement, local funding solutions, planning and zoning strategies and
federal grants to increase housing affordability.
National Association of Counties, 2019 323

1. Work with other local governments and affordable housing advocates to

encourage the state to replicate Florida’s State Housing Initiatives Partnership in
Georgia. The SHIP is funded through revenues derived from Florida’s Documentary Stamp
Tax on real estate transactions. 324 The estimated SHIP appropriation for fiscal 2022 is $147
million, which is distributed to all 67 counties as well as the 52 cities that qualify as CDBG
entitlement cities. The minimum grant to counties is $350,000; Polk County’s allocation is

321 P-TECH, “What is P-TECH all about?” Accessed March 18, 2022.
Andrew Miller, “Rebuilding the High School to Middle Class Pipeline,” Center for American Progress,
322

October 11, 2016.

Jonathan Harris, Stacy Nakintu, and Aaron Ridings, Affordable Housing Toolkit for Counties, Washington,
323

DC: National Association of Counties, March 2019.

324Florida Housing Finance Corporation, State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP). Available at
http://www.floridahousing.org/programs/special-programs/ship---state-housing-initiatives-partnership-program

204
 $3.7 million and Volusia County will receive $2.6 million. 325

In Florida, the State Housing Initiatives Partnership, created in 1992, provides funds to
counties and eligible cities to create local housing partnerships, increase the production and
preservation of affordable housing, further the housing element of local government
comprehensive plans, and increase housing-related employment. In return, counties and
cities are required to “establish a local housing assistance program by ordinance; develop a
local housing assistance plan and housing incentive strategy; amend land development
regulations or establish local policies to implement incentive strategies; form partnerships
and combine resources to reduce housing costs; and ensure that rent or mortgage payments
within targeted areas do not exceed 30 percent of the area median income limits, unless
authorized by the mortgage lender.” 326

2. Establish a county housing trust fund to support the county’s affordable housing
activities. According to the Center for Community Change, 69 counties in 17 states have
established housing trust funds as of 2021 and many additional counties across the nation
have partnered with a city or cities within their county. All 11 counties in the analysis are in
states that have state housing trust funds and three counties—Polk, Volusia, and Prince
George’s—have county housing trust funds. The county should act on the recommendation
of the 2010 study by the Livable Communities Coalition of Metro Atlanta and “establish a
housing trust fund to serve as an umbrella for county housing assistance programs.” 327 The
county should also act on the study’s recommendation to identify a dedicated funding
stream for the housing trust fund.

3. Increase DeKalb County’s CDBG allocations for housing activities. DeKalb County’s
CDBG allocations for housing are well below the national average. Between 2014 and 2019,
the county allocated about five percent of its CDBG funds for housing activities. During this
time about half of the county’s CDBG funds were used for public improvements and
facilities, with approximately $750,000 each year allocated to repay a HUD Section 108 loan
that was taken out to finance the construction of several senior citizens multipurpose
centers. As the HUD 108 loan is paid down, the county should consider redirecting those
funds for affordable housing activities.

4. Complete a comprehensive assessment of the county’s zoning and land use

requirements and revise accordingly to reduce financial and regulatory barriers to the
development of affordable housing. As part of their comprehensive housing affordability
strategies, many county and city governments have recently completed thorough reviews of

325325An exact replication of the Florida SHIP program in Georgia may be challenging given that Georgia
adopted a constitutional amendment in 1945 that prohibits “the proceeds of any particular tax or fund or a part
of percentage thereof” shall be appropriated to any “department, officer, bureau, board, commission, agency, or
institution.” The provision, however, has been amended several times permitting earmarking for a variety of
special purposes, though in each of these instances the amendments were “permissive rather than mandatory,”
meaning that the General Assembly “retain[ed] full authority and control of the extent and duration of revenues
allocated to these funds.” See Frank S. Alexander, Housing Trust Funds for Local Governments in Georgia,
Washington, DC: Fannie Mae Foundation, March 2002, pp. 6-7.
326Florida Housing Finance Corporation, State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP), Available at
http://www.floridahousing.org/programs/special-programs/ship---state-housing-initiatives-partnership-program.
327 Livable Communities Coalition of Metro Atlanta, A New Roadmap for Workforce Housing in DeKalb County,

July 2010, p. 96.

205
 their zoning and land use requirements to identify and remove barriers and obstacles to the
development of affordable housing. 328 Several recent scholarly and academic reports have
connected the housing shortage to increases in the restrictiveness of zoning and land use
regulations and the savviness with which local activists, predominantly affluent
homeowners, have used those restrictions to exclude rental housing in their
neighborhoods. 329

HUD has been engaged for several years in tracking regulatory barriers to affordable
housing, including the added costs such barriers contribute to the price of housing. A recent
HUD report summarized input from a broad group of housing stakeholders with a
comprehensive review of the academic and policy literature and noted a wide range of
estimates regarding the “regulatory tax” (added cost of restrictive regulations on housing
prices). The HUD report estimated that the regulatory tax in the median metropolitan area
was 31 percent. The report also cited a 2018 study by the National Association of Home
Builders and the National Multifamily Housing Council that estimated the cost of
regulations was 32 percent of total development costs of multifamily housing and a 2016
report by the National Association of Home Builders that estimated the regulatory costs
represented 24 percent of the price of a single-family home. 330

5. Determine the scope and purpose of the DeKalb County Regional Land Bank, and
if a land bank is determined to be needed, take the necessary steps to re-establish the land
bank. The county and its municipal partners need to re-establish the land bank, originally
formed in August 2011 in partnership with the city of Decatur. The city of Decatur withdrew
its membership in the land bank in 2016 and since Georgia’s enabling legislation requires
municipal participation, the county will need to find additional partners. The county is
currently discussing such plans with the municipalities of Clarkston and Lithonia. In
addition, the county will need to shore up operational support for the land bank as the
DeKalb Department of Community Development, which provided the operational support
needed to launch the land bank, is no longer able to do so. A request for county general
funds in the amount of $349,000 in fiscal 2018 was not approved.

To better assess the management and operational funds required to support the land bank,
the county needs to determine the primary purpose of the land bank—acquiring, clearing
tax liens, and immediately flipping tax delinquent properties; undertaking extensive
remediation on “junk” properties; hold and maintain properties in weak markets with excess
supply; aggressively acquire every property available at a tax sale; or some combination of

328Prince George’s County’s comprehensive housing strategy was informed by the county’s revised and updated
Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations as well as the public feedback provided through the community
engagement process used in revising the county’s zoning and land use regulations. See Prince George’s County,
Comprehensive Housing Strategy: Housing Opportunity for All, p. 14.
329See, for example, Jake Blumgart, “Public Meetings Thwart Housing Reform Where It Is Needed Most,”
Governing, March 17, 2022; Jenny Schuetz, Fixer-Upper: How to Repair America’s Broken Housing Systems,
Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 2022; and Katherine Levine Einstein, David M. Glick, and Maxwell
Palmer, Neighborhood Defenders: Participatory Politics and America’s Housing Crisis, New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2020;
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Eliminating Regulatory Barriers to Affordable
330

Housing: Federal, State, Local, and Tribal Opportunities, Washington, DC: HUD, Office of Policy Development
and Research, January 2021, Appendix.

206
 the above. The financing model will ultimately be determined by the land bank’s business
plan. Frank Alexander, the nation’s leading authority on land banks, notes that “creative
new approaches have emerged in the second and third generation of land banks in which
land banks can not only return vacant land to productive use, they can do so without
requiring expenditures of limited existing governmental resources.” 331

6. Follow through on the Comprehensive Plan’s call for inclusionary zoning to

leverage affordable housing through the private market (i.e., adoption of proposed workforce
housing ordinance). The 2010 study by the Livable Communities Coalition recommended the
county adopt a workforce housing ordinance to increase the availability of affordable
housing for households earning between 60 and 125 percent of the county’s median income.
The proposed ordinance called for the targeting of workforce housing to neighborhoods near
the county’s employment centers. According to a recent report by the Lincoln Land Institute,
there were nearly 900 jurisdictions with inclusionary housing programs in 25 states and the
District of Columbia at the end of 2016. The study found that more than 40 counties or
county divisions (townships) had inclusionary housing program in 2016. 332

The City of Atlanta adopted an inclusionary zoning ordinance in 2017, which took effect
earlier this year, that aims to increase the supply of affordable housing in the city’s BeltLine
and Westside overlay districts. The ordinance requires developers to dedicate a portion of
new residential developments containing ten or more rental units to households earning
between 60 and 80 percent of the area median income ($69,600 for fiscal 2017). Developers
can choose between setting aside 10 percent of rental units to households at 60 percent of
the area median income or 15 percent of units to households at 80 percent of the area
median income. Alternatively, developers can opt out of the requirement by paying a one-
time in-lieu fee to a housing trust fund to develop future affordable units or preserve
existing units.

A recent report by the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta noted that:

Unlike many of their northern counterparts that passed the affordability

tipping point long ago, most states and cities in the Southeast have not
established public policies and plans, infrastructure, and resources to address
the looming affordability problem. Local housing practitioners have indicated
that few Southeastern states or cities have robust inclusionary zoning policies,
housing trust funds, land banks, and permanently affordable housing
programs. Thus, these cities are at risk of experiencing less access to a large
segment of the workforce, sprawling development patterns, increased traffic
congestion, air quality issues, and declining racial and economic diversity. In
the long term, these cities may face out-migration, losses to the tax base, and
increased geographic segregation. Before these adverse effects fully set in,
states and cities can explore strategies to prioritize the production and
preservation of more affordable housing. 333

331 Alexander, Land Banks and Land Banking, p. 48.

332Inclusionary housing was defined as housing created through inclusionary housing zoning ordinances as well
as impact fee-based or in-lieu fees. Emily Thaden and Ruoniu Wang, Inclusionary Housing in the United States:
Prevalence, Impact, and Practices, Working Paper WP 17ET1, (Cambridge: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy,
September 2017), p. 11.
333Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, “Inclusionary Housing Policies: A Promising Tool for Housing
Affordability,” Partners Update, September/October 2014. Available at https://www.frbatlanta.org/community-

207
 One of the more viable policy solutions, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of
Atlanta, is inclusionary zoning, which it calls “a unique and potent tool in the
affordable housing ‘tool box’ [as] it leverages the strengths of the local for-profit
development industry and ensures the community receives benefit from public
investments that support private market development.” 334

In their summary of several recent studies of inclusionary zoning programs, the

Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta points out that “evidence strongly supports that
voluntary programs produce significantly fewer (or hardly any) units relative to
mandatory programs.” They also note that “research also shows that most
inclusionary housing programs are preserving the affordability of units over
time.” A national study of more than 300 inclusionary zoning programs found that
81 percent required rental units remain affordable for 30 years and 84 percent of
home ownership units were to remain affordable for at least 30 years. 335

Opponents of inclusionary zoning programs maintain that such programs may

depress residential housing production and/or increase housing prices. For
example, a recent Wall Street Journal editorial noted that a hypothetical
inclusionary zoning program that required a 10 percent set aside of below-market
rate units in a 100-unit development would increase housing prices for the market
rate units by 5.5 percent, and noted that research studies suggest that
inclusionary zoning policies led to less affordable housing in San Francisco and
that housing prices are lower in communities with fewer land use restrictions. 336

The Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, however, points out that “rigorous studies
[of inclusionary zoning programs] have found little or no impact on the overall
housing supply or prices of market-rate homes” and added that “other research
found no evidence of inclusionary zoning affecting single-family starts or prices in
San Francisco, while inclusionary housing in Boston was associated with very
small declines in single-family production and small increases in single-family
pricing.” 337

The Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta concludes that “ultimately, the impact and
outcomes of any inclusionary housing program is largely contingent upon the
design of its policies and program…No one inclusionary zoning ordinance or
inclusionary housing program is designed the same way, as they must be tailored
to local housing market trends and conditions.” 338

The county should, therefore, convene a task force to draft an inclusionary

housing ordinance. In drafting the ordinance, the task force should review
Atlanta’s recently adopted ordinance as well as review and revise as needed the
draft workforce housing ordinance included in the 2010 Livable Communities
Coalition report. The task force should ensure the ordinance is consistent with the

development/publications/partners-update/2014/05/affordable-housing/140918-inclusionary-housing-
policies.aspx.
334 Ibid
335 Ibid.
336Paul Kupiec and Edward Pinto, “The High Cost of ‘Affordable Housing’ Mandates,” The Wall Street Journal,
13 February 2018, p. A17.
337 Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, “Inclusionary Housing Policies.”
338 Ibid.

208
 county’s overall affordable housing goals and objectives, and that the county’s use
of terms such as workforce housing are consistent in definition across
departments, agencies, programs, and policy tools.

7. Explore opportunities for using other public assets/public-private partnerships

for the creation of affordable housing—e.g., public land, other development
opportunities, reuse of under-utilized/vacant shopping malls and strip malls.
Many local governments have recently adopted strategies that locate affordable and market-
rate housing alongside or on top of other public assets such as libraries, community centers,
fire stations, schools, transit stations, and parking garages. 339 The city of Boston, for
example, recently issued a Request for Information asking local communities and developers
for ideas on how affordable housing could be combined with public assets. The county should
identify publicly-owned sites within the county, particularly those in high value areas such
as those near employment and activity centers, and assess the viability of co-locating
affordable housing on those sites as they are developed or redeveloped. The county should
also consider this inventory to be a regular cross-agency activity and follow the lead of
Boston and other local governments in soliciting public input regarding opportunities for co-
locating affordable housing with new public facilities and the redevelopment of publicly-
owned land or obsolete buildings.

8. Encourage incorporation of affordable housing in transit oriented development.

One of the key assets of DeKalb County is that it is served by MARTA rail; ten stations are
located within the county. As MARTA and its partners move to create mixed-use
developments around its rail stations, the county should ensure that any transit-oriented
developments in the county include an affordable housing component.

9. Preserve rental units at risk with expiring subsidies. About one out of five (18.7%)
assisted units in DeKalb County could lose their affordability restrictions over the next 10
years if their subsidies are not renewed (about 2,500 units). About two-thirds of the county’s
subsidized units will be lost in the next 20 years (about 9,000 units) unless their subsidies
are renewed. These figures are derived from the National Affordable Housing Database, and
while helpful in understanding the big picture, many of the records in the database have
incomplete information. To better utilize the information in the database to guide
preservation strategies and priorities, the county should create its own inventory of
subsidized housing units based on this data with updated information on type of tenant
(e.g., family, elderly, special needs population; income group), subsidies, property ownership
and management, and neighborhood location and market conditions, among others. The
county should also explore opportunities for the creation of multi-jurisdictional (county-
municipality) preservation strategies like the approach taken in Cook County (Illinois)
regarding The Preservation Compact. 340 TPC is a collaborative initiative that engages for-
profit and non-profit developers, tenant advocacy groups, civic groups, lenders, and federal,
state, and local government agencies to preserve the county’s affordable rental housing
stock.

339Robert Hickey and Lisa Sturtevant, Public Land and Affordable Housing in the Washington DC Region,
Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute and National Housing Conference, February 2015. Available at
http://washington.uli.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/56/2015/02/ULI_PublicLandReport_Final020215.pdf.
340 Community Investment Corporation, The Preservation Compact: 2017 Preservation Compact Biannual

Report, Chicago, IL. Available at http://www.preservationcompact.org/wp-content/uploads/TPC-2017-Biannual-

Report.final_.pdf.

209
 10. Preserve the county’s stock of naturally occurring affordable housing. The county
should undertake a thorough inventory of its small rental properties, particularly those
class B and class C apartments near schools and employment centers, and devise strategies
for their preservation. Recently, several communities have engaged social impact investing
to preserve their naturally occurring affordable housing. 341 Examples include the Greater
Minnesota Housing Fund’s NOAH Impact Fund, created with support from the McKnight
Foundation; 342 the Housing Partnership Equity Trust, a Boston-based membership
organization of more than 100 housing and community development nonprofits from across
the country, that has established the nation’s first nonprofit, mission-oriented Real Estate
Investment Trust; 343 and the Rose Housing Preservation Fund, organized by New York
developer Jonathan F.P. Rose, that raised $233 million from about 125 investors for a real
estate fund dedicated to the acquisition, rehabilitation, and preservation of affordable
housing properties. 344
11. Develop a comprehensive strategy for working with landlords and property
managers to ensure the county’s affordable housing stock is preserved and well-
maintained. The county should take the lead in convening its key departments and
agencies as well as the county’s three housing authorities (DeKalb, Decatur, Lithonia) and
key officials from its municipalities to develop a comprehensive and consistent set of
strategies for working with landlords and property managers. The strategies should follow
Allan Mallach’s suggestion of combining regulatory and financial incentives to encourage
good behavior among property investors (see discussion on pages 139-142), with particular
attention to effective strategies for working with distressed property investors. 345

The county should also review its building codes to ensure that they are compliant with
industry standards, such as those published by the International Property Maintenance
Code, as well as move to shift its code enforcement strategies to those based on Judicial In
Rem Code Enforcement and Judicial In Rem Tax Sales, which can be used by any city or
county in the state of Georgia.

341Stockton Williams, Preserving Multifamily Workforce and Affordable Housing: New Approaches for
Investing in a Vital National Asset, Washington, DC: The Urban Land Institute and NeighborWorks America,
2015. Available at https://uli.org/wp-content/uploads/ULI-Documents/Preserving-Multifamily-Workforce-and-
Affordable-Housing.pdf.
342 Greater Minnesota Housing Fund, NOAH Impact Fund, https://gmhf.com/about/programs/noah-impact-fund/
343Noelle St. Clair, “Capital for Communities: Preserving Affordable Rental Housing Through a Nonprofit Real
Estate Investment Trust,” Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, Spring 2017. Available at
https://www.philadelphiafed.org/community-development/publications/cascade/95/03_capital-for-communities.
Keiko Morris, “New York Developer Raises Fund for Affordable Housing,” The Wall Street Journal, 12
344

September 2017. Available at https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-york-developer-raises-fund-for-affordable-

housing-1505214000.
345Alan Mallach, Meeting the Challenge of Distressed Property Investors in America’s Neighborhoods, New York,
LISC, October 2010, p. 9. Available at
http://www.instituteccd.org/uploads/iccd/documents/102010_distressed_property_investors.pdf.

210
 Conclusion
A bPlace matters. As Margery Austin Turner and colleagues recently noted, “the neighborhoods, cities,
rural communities, and metropolitan regions where we live shape both our day-to-day quality of life
and our families’ prospects for upward mobility. Ensuring the equitable distribution of opportunity
across the diverse places in our country is critical to the well-being of people and communities.” 346
We encourage DeKalb County policymakers and key stakeholders interested in affordable housing to
consider the recommendations for action in this section not just ends that yield an increased supply
of affordable housing in the county, but also as means to more vibrant neighborhoods and
communities that provide wider pathways to economic prosperity. In considering these
recommendations we encourage county policymakers and practitioners to think about how these
recommendations can contribute to a place-based/place-focused approach for not just improving the
affordability of housing but also improving the conditions of the neighborhoods and communities
that influence the well-being and prospects for upward mobility of county residents.
In thinking about designing and implementing a comprehensive housing affordability strategy for
the county, we encourage county officials and affordable housing stakeholders to incorporate the
principles Turner and her colleagues recommend as the central components of the next generation of
place-based policies and programs. Though initially offered as recommendations for federal
policymakers, we think they are equally applicable to local policies and initiatives that take a place-
based perspective. These include:
• Confront racial inequity and justice,
• Bridge sectors and policy domains and activate both resources and policy reforms at
local, regional, state, and federal levels,
• Respect and build community voice and power in decisionmaking and governance,
• Deliver sufficient resources and lasting reforms to achieve meaningful change for
people and places, and
• Promote a culture of continuous learning among policymakers and practitioners. 347

346Margery Austin Turner, James Ladi Williams, Justin Milner, Jessica Pizarek, and Ashleigh Gardere, A
Blueprint for the Next Generation of Federal Place-Based Policy, Washington, DC: The Urban Institute,
p.9December 2021.
347 Ibid.

211
This page is intentionally blank

212
Appendix A

Table A-1. HUD FY 2021 Section 8 Income Limits, DeKalb County, GA

Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA Metro Area Median Income: $86,200

Persons in household
Income Group
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Extremely low income*
18,100 20,700 23,300 26,500 31,040 35,580 40,120 44,660

Very low income 30,200 34,500 38,800 43,100 46,550 50,000 53,450 56,900
(50% AMI)
Low income 48,300 55,200 62,100 68,950 74,500 80,000 85,500 91,050
(80% AMI)
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, FY 2021 Income L imits
Documentation System, FY 2021 Income Limits Summary, DeKalb County, GA.

* The FY 2014 Consolidated Appropriations Act changed the definition of extremely low-income to be
the greater of 30/50ths (60 percent) of the Section 8 very low-income limit or the poverty guideline
as established by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), provided that this amount is
not greater than the Section 8 50% very low-income limit. Consequently, the ex tremely low-income
limits may equal the very low (50%) income limits.

Table A-2. HUD FY 2021 HOME Income Limits, DeKalb County, GA

Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA Metro Area Median Income: $86,200

Persons in household
Income Group
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
30% Limits 18,100 20,700 23,300 26,500 31,040 35,580 40,120 44,660

Very low income (50% AMI) 30,200 34,500 38,800 43,100 46,550 50,000 53,450 56,900

60% Limits 36,240 41,400 46,560 51,720 55,860 60,000 64,140 68,280

Low income 48,300 55,200 62,100 68,950 74,500 80,000 85,500 91,050

213
Table A-3. Variables Used in Cluster Analysis to Identify Comparison Counties

Percent population Change, 2000-2015

Percent of population age 25-44, 2015
Percent of population age 65 or older, 2015
Median household income, 2015
Percent of persons age 25 or older with college degree or higher, 2015
Percent of persons with income below poverty, 2015
Percent of persons unemployed, 2015
Total number of jobs, 2015
Percent of housing units owner-occupied, 2015
Percent of housing units vacant, 2015

214
Table A-4. HUD Small Area Fair Market Rents, Atlanta Metropolitan Area, FY 2018
DeKalb County Zip Codes

Zip Code Efficiency One-Bedroom Two-Bedroom Three- Four-Bedroom

Bedroom
30002 780 800 910 1,130 1,380
30012 910 930 1,060 1,310 1,600
30021 970 990 1,130 1,400 1,710
30030 1,250 1,270 1,450 1,800 2,190
30031 1,110 1,130 1,290 1,600 1,950
30032 960 970 1,110 1,370 1,680
30033 1,220 1,240 1,410 1,750 2,130
30034 980 1,000 1,140 1,410 1,730
30035 1,030 1,040 1,190 1,470 1,800
30036 1,110 1,130 1,290 1,600 1,950
30037 1,110 1,130 1,290 1,600 1,950
30038 1,070 1,090 1,240 1,540 1,880
30039 1,340 1,360 1,550 1,920 2,350
30058 1,090 1,110 1,260 1,560 1,910
30072 910 930 1,060 1,310 1,600
30074 1,110 1,130 1,290 1,600 1,950
30079 980 1,000 1,140 1,410 1,730
30083 1,010 1,030 1,170 1,450 1,770
30084 1,110 1,130 1,290 1,600 1,950
30085 1,110 1,130 1,290 1,600 1,950
30086 1,110 1,130 1,290 1,600 1,950
30087 1,220 1,250 1,420 1,760 2,150
30088 1,060 1,080 1,230 1,520 1,860
30094 1,130 1,150 1,310 1,620 1,980
30288 890 900 1,030 1,280 1,560
30294 1,130 1,150 1,310 1,620 1,980
30306 1,520 1,540 1,760 2,180 2,660
30307 1,350 1,370 1,560 1,930 2,360
30316 1,150 1,170 1,330 1,650 2,010
30317 1,030 1,050 1,200 1,490 1,820
30319 1,660 1,690 1,920 2,380 2,910
30322 1,390 1,410 1,610 1,990 2,430
30324 1,660 1,690 1,930 2,390 2,920

215
Zip Code Efficiency One-Bedroom Two-Bedroom Three- Four-Bedroom
Bedroom
30329 1,370 1,400 1,590 1,970 2,410
30333 1,110 1,130 1,290 1,600 1,950
30338 1,660 1,690 1,930 2,390 2,920
30340 1,130 1,150 1,310 1,620 1,980
30341 1,240 1,260 1,440 1,780 2,180
30345 1,410 1,440 1,640 2,030 2,480
30346 1,530 1,550 1,770 2,190 2,680
30350 1,340 1,360 1,550 1,920 2,350
30356 1,110 1,130 1,290 1,600 1,950
30359 1,110 1,130 1,290 1,600 1,950
30360 1,060 1,080 1,230 1,520 1,860
30362 1,110 1,130 1,290 1,600 1,950
30366 1,110 1,130 1,290 1,600 1,950
31107 1,110 1,130 1,290 1,600 1,950
31119 1,110 1,130 1,290 1,600 1,950
31141 1,110 1,130 1,290 1,600 1,950
31145 1,110 1,130 1,290 1,600 1,950
31146 1,110 1,130 1,290 1,600 1,950
39901 1,110 1,130 1,290 1,600 1,950

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, FY2022 Small Area FMRs For DeKalb County,
GA.

216
Appendix B

217
T1

218
T2

219
T3

220
T4

221
T5

222
T6

223
T7

224
T8

225
T9

226
T10

227
T11

228
T12

229
T13

230
T14

231
T15

232
T16

233
M1

234
M2

235
M3

236
M4

237
M5

238
M6

239
M7

240
M8

241
M9

242
M10

243
M11

244
M12

245
M13

246
M14

247
M15

248
M16

249
M17

250
M18

251
M19

252
M20

253
M21

254
M22

255
M23

256
M24

257
M25

258
M26

259
This page is intentionally blank

260
Appendix C

261