The State of Housing for Hispanics in the United States

A 2005 Policy Brief for the New York State Assembly Puerto Rican/Hispanic Task Force

Honorable Sheldon Silver, Speaker Honorable Peter M. Rivera, Chair

Part of an ongoing series of briefs prepared by the Prepared by New York Latino Research Carlos Vargas-Ramos, Ph.D. Network on issues impacting Centro de Estudios Puertorriqueños Latino communities City University of New York in New York State New York State Assembly Puerto Rican/Hispanic Task Force

Hon. Sheldon Silver, Speaker Hon. Peter M. Rivera, Chairman Hon. Vito J. Lopez, Co-Chairman

EXECUTIVE BOARD MEMBERS TASK FORCE STAFF Hon. Carmen Arroyo Daniel Figueroa III, Executive Director Hon. Jose Rivera Melvyn A. Romero, Deputy Director Hon. Ruben Diaz, Jr. Guillermo A. Martinez, Legislative Director Hon. Luis M. Diaz Anton A. Konev, Senior Legislative Assistant Hon. Felix Ortiz Hon. Adam Clayton Powell, IV PUBLICATION PRODUCTION STAFF Hon. Adriano Espaillat Guillermo A. Martinez Hon. Jose Peralta Anton A. Konev Hon. Philip R. Ramos Hon. Naomi Rivera

TASK FORCE MEMBERS Hon. Jeffrion Aubry Hon. Michael R. Benedetto Hon. William F. Boyland, Jr. Hon. Adele Cohen Hon. James F. Brennan Hon. Jeffrey Dinowitz Hon. Vivian E. Cook Hon. Sandra R. Galef Hon. Herman D. Farrell, Jr. Hon. Rodger Green Hon. Michael N. Gianaris Hon. Richard N. Gottfried Hon. Diane Gordon Hon. Aurelia Greene Hon. Carl Heastie Hon. Rhoda S. Jacobs Hon. Aileen Gunther Hon. Sam Hoyt Hon. John W. Lavelle Hon. Margaret M. Markey Hon. Ivan C. Lafayette Hon. Brian M. McLaughlin Hon. Joseph R. Lentol Hon. Catherine T. Nolan Hon. Nettie Mayersohn Hon. Amy Paulin Hon. Joan L. Millman Hon. James Gary Pretlow Hon. Daniel J. O’Donnell Hon. William Scarborough Hon. Audrey I. Pheffer Hon. Michele Titus Hon. Steven Sanders Hon. Daryl Towns Hon. Anthony S. Seminerio Hon. Mark Weprin Hon. Keith Wright Hon. Kenneth P. Zebrowski The New York Latino Research Network (NYLARNet) is a new research partnership among Introduction U.S. Latino scholars and other professionals from three institutions of higher education in New York State that aims to instill greater public understanding of the multifarious concerns and experiences of Latinos in New York State. NYLARNet has begun to address a broad spectrum of subjects related to four target areas: health, education, immigration, and politics/public policy and has already prepared six policy briefs on various issues of interest and impact to New York State Latinos. This brief addresses important housing issues facing Latino communities across the nation and is accompanied by an introduction that focuses on specific problems in New York State. Dr. Carlos Vargas-Ramos has done and excellent job in high- lighting problems that need to be addressed by policymakers and Assemblyman Vito Lopez, Chair of the Assembly Standing Committee on Housing, has presented the urgency and the scope of the problems in the Empire State. Housing is a major economic indicator that helps measure the economic strength of this nation and New York. Its affordability, availability and the economic impact and linkages it has to the rest of the economy make it an issue that needs both short-term and long-term policy objectives. This report presents such proposals. I am enthusiastic about the opportunities and changes that will come about for our communities through NYLARNet. It is a reality that has long been in the waiting. Its potential can be limitless and its promise is priceless. I have no doubts that the work NYLARNet has begun to engage will lead to signifi- cant public policy changes that will make life better for all New Yorkers, not just Latinos.

Assemblyman Peter M. Rivera Chair New York State Assembly Puerto Rican/Hispanic Task Force There is a crisis within Latino communities. The Problem & Impact on Affordable housing is becoming almost unattain- able across the nation and more specifically in the New Yorkers Latino communities of New York City. In actuality, we are facing an affordable housing crisis across all of New York State. This crisis is evident on a number of different levels and is documented in various reports. In its September 2004 report, the Low Income Housing Coalition ranked New York State as the fifth least affordable state in the country. This same study finds that a worker earning the minimum wage ($6.00 per hour) would have to work 121 hours a week in order to afford the fair market rental of $945 a month for a two-bedroom apartment in New York State. Overall, from 37% to 61% of New York State households, county-by-county cannot afford this fair market rent. A look at HUD’s breakdown of Census2000 data shows that cost burden is the most common housing need in communities across New York State. Statewide, 86% of households with at least one identified housing need have either a cost burden or a severe cost burden. This data also indicates that 32% of New York households have housing costs which are more than 30% of their income, which is the acceptable standard of affordability. Just as this report makes the case for more affordable housing in Latino communities across the country, the need for more affordable housing in New York State is abundantly clear. As Chair of the Assembly Housing Committee, I will continue to lead the fight for more funding for affordable housing production and look for ways to preserve the affordable housing stock that currently exists throughout the State.

Assemblyman Vito Lopez Chair New York State Assembly Standing Committee on Housing In keeping with its mission to enhance the knowledge base about issues that impact Preface: Latinos in the United States, the New York Latino Research and Resources Network (NYLARNet) is pleased to introduce and share this policy brief on the state of housing for Latinos from 1997 to 2004. While the brief provides many troublesome findings—the majority of Latinos continue to be renters, they use a greater proportion of their resources than the rest of the population for housing expenses, and experience worse living conditions than the population as a whole—it also points out feasible policy alternatives. This report is one of six projects sponsored by NYLARNet in 2005, its first year of opera- tion. Other projects include an assessment of Latino educational attainment, a report on the socioeconomic status of Latinos, and an analy- sis of Latino voting in the 2004 presidential election, all focused on New York State. This report should bring further attention on the part of policy makers to Latino housing needs. More important, it is my hope that it will spearhead meaningful policy interventions at all levels of government.

Dr. José E. Cruz Director NYLARNet University at Albany State University of New York Executive Summary

This public policy paper offers information on In order to reverse these conditions, we recommend housing conditions for Latinos relative to the overall the following: population of the United States, based on survey data • At the Federal level: An increase in the stock of collected in the American Housing Survey for the years housing, particularly for people in the middle and lower 1997, 1999, 2001 and 2003 (the last year for which data income levels by maintaining and expanding income tax are available). Major findings are as follows: credits, enforcement of Community Reinvestment Act • The majority of Latinos in the United States regulations, an expansion of the Section 8 program and (54%) were renters in 2003, compared to 32% of the public housing. population as a whole. The homeownership rate among • At the State and local levels: greater vigilance of Latinos was correspondingly lower (46%). This quality of the existing housing stock and increase assis- homeownership rate was 32% lower than for the popula- tance to anti-abandonment efforts. tion as a whole. The data for 2003 represent a reversal in the trend observed in the late 1990s when a growing • At a more general governmental level: an increase number of Latinos were purchasing homes. After six in the minimum wage rate to a “living wage” rate; the years of steady growth in homeownership among elimination of predatory lending practices to reduce Latinos, the rate reverted to levels observed between insurance and mortgage costs for homeowners; the four and six years ago. redistribution of funding sources for education from the local level to the State and Federal levels to lessen over- • Latinos had to use a greater proportion of re- reliance on local property taxes. sources for their housing expenses than the overall population. Latinos have to do more with fewer re- • Greater reliance on limited-equity and limited- sources. They paid 4% more in monthly housing costs profit housing to reduce up-front cost for prospective than the population as a whole in 2003, with a median homebuyers. household income that was 20% lower than for the • The state should examine new high speed rail overall population. These 2003 data also reflected a models that will help reduce overcrowding and the high reversal in the trend observed in the late 1990s, which saw population density in New York City. These factors create the relative difference in housing costs for Latinos de- a high demand for housing that leads to increased hous- crease, and return to levels last seen eight years ago. ing costs. This high speed rail model should connect rural Latinos also received fewer subsidies (69% less) to cover counties nearest to New York City and to other urban their rental expenses than the population as a whole. centers in the State. • Living conditions for Latinos tend to be worse The impact of implementing such a transportation than for the population as a whole. Their homes tended system will allow increased homeownership opportuni- to be overcrowded at rates that were five or six times ties and provide affordable renting options for those greater than for the population as a whole. Moreover, presently being priced out of the housing market in urban Latinos tended to live in homes that were physically centers. Simultaneously, such an initiative will increase smaller (by 17%) than for the population as a whole. the population in counties facing rapid depopulation and The combination of more people living in smaller declining property values due to the lack of access to spaces means that Latinos have more than a third less employment opportunities in those areas. The economic living space than the overall population. impact of such a model would benefit renters, • Latino homes also tend to be older than those in homeowners and all of the geographic areas linked by a which the overall population lives. These homes also high speed rail system. tended to exhibit physical conditions, such as lacking plumbing facilities or whose water source was not safe to drink or were structurally deteriorated, which pro- vided worse living conditions than the homes the population as a whole lived in. “The State of Housing for Hispanics in the United States”

Carlos Vargas-Ramos, Ph.D. Centro de Estudios Puertorriqueños (CUNY)

The current state of housing for the United States’ Rental Occupancy Rate Hispanic population is not halagüeño; that is, it is not 70.0 flattering, and its outlook is promising only to the extent 60.0 57.2 54.8 53.7 that there is so much room for improvement that 51.8 progress must be but inevitable. However, anything short 50.0 of sustained advances in homeownership rates and 40.0 34.2 33.1 marked improvements in living conditions for both 32.0 31.7 30.0 Latino homeowners and renters should be seen as Percentage of Households Percentage disappointing failures of public policy and wavering 20.0 political will. 10.0

The picture painted in this brief is mixed. On the one 0.0 1997 1999 2001 2003 Year hand, Latinos lag significantly behind the aggregate of Figure 1 the US population in positive housing indicators and are overrepresented in the categories of negative housing indicators, and they do so for 2003 as they did in 2001, 1999 and 1997. On the other hand, over this period there Home Ownership Rate has been some progress in some areas of concern; but 80.0

70.0 68.0 68.3 this progress has not been necessarily consistent. 65.8 66.9 What do we know about the conditions in which 60.0

50.0 48.2 Latinos live? Relying on data from the American 45.2 46.3 42.8 Housing Survey for the United States in 2003 (as well as 40.0 i 2001, 1999 and 1997) , we find that the majority of 30.0 Latinos are renters (Figure 1). Fifty-four percent of of Households Percentage Hispanics rented their homes compared to 32% of the 20.0 overall population of the United States. The vast majority 10.0

0.0 of people in the United States — over two thirds— 1997 1999 2001 2003 Year owned the home they lived in, but only 48% of Latinos Figure 2 did (Figure 2). Looking back over the previous six years, however, we had observed a positive trend toward increased Difference in the Rate of Homeownership of Hispanics Relative to Total U.S. Population homeownership among Latinos as well as the U.S. -26 population as a whole. In 1997, 66% of the US popula- 1997 1999 2001 2003 -27 tion owned their home; 67% in 1999; and 68% in 2001. -28

For Latinos, the homeownership rate increased from -29 -29.1

43% in 1997 to 45% in 1999 to 48% in 2001. However, -30 in 2003, it declined by 2%. The increase in -31

-32

homeownership rates among Latinos occurred at a faster Change Percentage -32.2 -32.4 pace than for the population as a whole, reducing the -33 disparity in ownership between Latinos and the total U.S. -34

-35 population from 35% to 29% (Figure 3). But in 2003 this -34.9 difference increased to 32%, reversing the trend of the -36 Figure 3 late 1990s. This 29% difference in home ownership rates has implications for wealth, since homeownership provides by far the biggest asset families in the United States have and it is the anchor for middle-class status. U.S. Population Hispanic Population Difference in Median Household Income of Hispanic Relative to Total U.S. Households Latinos, of course, tend to have lower income levels

0 than the overall population. In fact, the median house- 1997 1999 2001 2003 hold income for Latinos in 2003 was 20% lower — at -5 $33,259 — than the $41,775 in median household income of the population as a whole. Latinos also have -10 Figure 4a to do more with less income. Latinos paid 4% more in

-15 monthly housing costs than the overall population; for,

-17.0 whereas Latinos paid $714 a month in housing costs, it Percentage Change Percentage -20 -20.5 -20.4 cost the overall population $684 to cover their housing expenses for the month. The trend over time had seen -25 this relative overpayment for housing costs reduced as -27.3 -30 Latino median income has increased between 1997 and Figure 4A 2001. Therefore, as the difference in median household

Difference in Median Monthly Housing Costs of Hispanic Households Relative income for Latinos decreased relative to the median to Total US Households household income of the population as a whole, from 5 27% in 1997 to 21% in 1999 and 17% in 2001, the 4.4 4.5 4.3

4 difference in median monthly housing costs paid by 4 Latinos when compared with the overall population 3.5 3.3 decreased from 4% to 3% over the same period of time 3 (Figure 4a, 4b). However, in 2003, the median house- 2.5

2 hold income for Latinos decreased, while that of the Percentage Change Percentage

1.5 U.S. population overall increased. At the same time,

1 housing costs for Latinos increased at a greater rate than

0.5 for the U.S. population as a whole.

0 1997 1999 2001 2003 The greater proportion of monthly housing costs Figure 4B paid by Latinos might be balanced by an increase in the No Rent Subsidy subsidies Latino households receive to offset these 50.0 47.4 housing costs. But fewer Latino households reported

45.0 42.9 43.1 41.1 receiving any rent subsidy compared to the population 40.0 as a whole: 43% of them receive no such subsidy, 35.0 compared to 26% of the overall population that reports 30.0 27.9 not receiving rental subsidies — a 17% difference 26.2 25.8 25.6 25.0 (Figure 5). This difference in rent subsidies was greater 20.0 in 1997 — 20% — and in 1999 — 17% — and in 2001 Percentage of Households Percentage 15.0 — 15%. But in 2003, the difference in rent subsidies 10.0 received by the population as a whole and the Latino 5.0 population increased once again to almost 18%. On the 0.0 other hand, 3% of Latinos report living in rental prop- 1997 1999 2001 2003 Figure 5 erty owned by a public housing authority, compared to Housing Unit Owned by PHA 2% of the population as a whole —a rate that seems 3.5 relatively stable over time (Figure 6). 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.0 For those Latinos fortunate enough to own their

2.5 home, the pressure on their income has fluctuated. In 2003, they paid 12% more on their monthly housing 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.7 than the overall population. Latino homeowners paid

1.5 $852 in monthly housing expenses while the monthly

Percentage of Households Percentage costs for homeowners in the United States were about 1.0 $758. Part of what causes Latino homeowners to pay 0.5 more is the higher cost of their monthly home mortgage

0.0 principal and interest payments, which is 4% higher 1997 1999 2001 2003 Figure 6 than the $709 the overall population paid. The differ- ences in how much more Latino homeowners have paid U.S. Population Hispanic Population in housing costs in general or in principal and interest payments on a mortgage in particular relative to the Difference in Median Monthly Housing Costs for Hispanic Owners Relative overall population have fluctuated. In 1997, Latino to Total U.S. House Unit Owners homeowners paid 15% more in monthly housing cost 16 15.1 than the population as a whole. This difference declined 14.6 14 13.2 to 13% in 1999, but increased to 15% again in 2001. In 12.4 terms of monthly payments for principal and interest, 12 Latinos paid 4.5% more than the population as a whole 10 in 1997. The difference declined to 1% in 1999 but 8 increased again to 3% in 2001 (Figure 7a-b). Percentage Change Percentage 6

Latinos not only pay more for their housing situation, 4 but they are also disproportionately exposed to worse living 2 conditions than the population as a whole. These less than 0 ideal living conditions are measured along several indica- 1997 1999 2001 2003 Figure 7A tors. First, Latinos live in quarters that are smaller than Difference in Monthly Payment for Principal and Interest for Hispanic Owners those of the overall population. The median square footage Relative to Total U.S. Housing Unit Owners of housing Latinos occupied in 2003 is 1,455, which is 5

4.5 17% smaller than the 1,756 square feet of housing the 4.5 4.1 larger population enjoyed (Figure 8). Moreover, the 4 situation is aggravated by the fact that Latinos occupy not 3.5 3.1 only smaller space, but these smaller spaces are occupied 3 by more people than is the case for the overall population. 2.5 2 The Census Bureau finds that the average household size in Change Percentage 1.5 the United States in 2000 was 2.59 persons, but for His- 1 panic households the average size was 3.59 or one addi- 1 0.5 tional person per household. The American Housing 0 Survey of 2003 finds similar proportions: 2.5 persons 1997 1999 2001 2003 Figure 7B overall per household compared to 3.33 persons per Latino Difference in Median Square Footage of Housing Units of household (Figure 9). Latinos have more than a third less Hispanic Households Relative to Total U.S. Households living space — 464 square feet per person — than the 0 overall population (734 square feet) (Figure 10). 1997 1999 2001 2003 Larger households living in smaller spaces leads to -5 overcrowding, and this is clearly observed in the survey results. Two percent of households in the overall popula- -10 tion lived in crowded housing conditions, defined as -15 more than one person living in a room. Ten percent of Change Percentage -16.5 Latinos, on the other hand, lived in such crowded -17.2 -17.1 -20 conditions. Latinos fared even worse in homes that are -20.5 severely overcrowded, defined as more than 1.5 persons -25 per room. More than six times as many Latinos — 2.5% Figure 8 — lived in severely overcrowded homes as the popula- Population in Housing Unit tion overall (0.4%). Thus an inordinately large number 3.5 of Latinos (13%) lived in overcrowded or severely 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 overcrowded quarters compared to the rest of the popula- 3.0 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.5 tion (2.5%) (Figure 11a, 11b). Over time, there seems to 2.5 have been a slight improvement in the overcrowded conditions Latinos live in, but mostly among those 2.0

Latinos who live in severely overcrowded homes. This 1.5 rate has declined from 4.4% of Latino homes in 1997 to Number of Persons in Household of Persons Number 2.8% in 1999 and 2.7% in 2001 to the current rate. For 1.0 overcrowded households, the rate has hovered around 0.5 10% over the same period. A reason for concern, how- 0.0 1997 1999 2001 2003 ever, is that while overcrowded conditions are steadily Figure 9 subsiding for the population as a whole, the difference in crowded conditions between the total U.S. population U.S. Population Hispanic Population and for Latinos has increased over time. Difference in Median Square Feet per Person of Hispanic Households Relative to Total U.S. Households In New York City, a 1997 survey conducted by

-34 Columbia University’s School of Social Work found that 1997 1999 2001 2003 17% of non-immigrant Latinos and 22% of immigrant -35 Latinos lived in housing with less than one person per -36 room. Neighborhood data from a 1999 study by New

-- York University’s Furman Center for Real Estate and -37 -36.8 -36.8 Public Policy also shows that, whereas in the city as a -37.5 -38

Percentage Change Percentage whole 7.5% of households were severely crowded, there

-39 were ten neighborhoods where severely crowded house- holds represented between 11% and 23% all of -40 households.ii Of these ten neighborhoods, Latinos were -40.4 -41 the majority population in six and overrepresented in Figure 10 another three. By way of contrast, the proportion of Overcrowding crowded Latino homes (3.9%) in the Miami-Ft. Lauder- (1.01 to 1.5 persons per room) dale metropolitan area was 50% higher in 2002 than for 12.0 homes in the region overall (2.6%).iii Latinos, however, 10.2 10.1 10.0 10.0 9.7 occupied proportionately fewer severely overcrowded homes (0.4%) than the population as a whole (0.6%). On 8.0 the other hand, in the Phoenix, AZ metropolitan area,

6.0 Latino homes are almost four times as crowded as for homes overall. Whereas the crowding and severely 4.0 Percentage of Households Percentage crowded home rates in the Phoenix area were 3.1% and 2.2 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.9% overall, respectively, Latino homes were over- crowded at a rate of 11.8% or severely overcrowded at a 0.0 iv 1997 1999 2001 2003 rate of 3.5%. Figure 11A Year Latinos in the United States also tend to live in Severe Overcrowding (1.51 or more persons per room) quarters that are relatively older than those in which the 5.0 population at large lives, according to the 2003 American 4.4 4.5 Housing Survey. The median year in which the housing 4.0 structure respondents live in was built was 1967 for 3.5 Latinos and 1971 for all respondents. It is not surprising 3.0 2.8 2.7 2.5 then to see that Latinos would be disproportionately 2.5 represented among those who live in deteriorated hous- 2.0 ing. In addition, about a quarter of Latinos lived in 1.5 housing structures that exhibited sign of external struc- 1.0 0.7 0.5 tural deterioration, such as a sagging roof or a roof with a 0.4 0.4 0.5 hole or missing roofing material; missing brick or siding 0.0 1997 1999 2001 2003 or a sloping outside wall; broken or boarded up windows; Figure 11B cracked or crumbling foundation. The comparable figure Lack of Some or All Plumbing Facilities for the overall population is one fifth. Almost twice as 2.5 many Latinos — 2% — lived in homes that lacked some 2.2 2.2 or all plumbing facilities (e.g. hot piped water, bathtub or 2.0 shower, flush toilet) than the population as a whole (1%) 1.7 1.7 (Figure 12). Close to a quarter of Latinos (or more than 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.3 one and a half times more Latinos) lived in units whose 1.2 primary source of water is not safe to drink, compared to 1.0

Percentage of Households Percentage 9% of the overall population (Figure 13). A quarter more Latinos — 9% — reported feeling uncomfortably cold 0.5 for 24 hours or more the previous winter than the overall population (7%); though over time this rate has fluctu- 0.0 1997 1999 2001 2003 ated (Figure 14). Half as many Latinos — 3% — lived in Figure 12 units that have severe physical problems (e.g. with the plumbing, heating, electric, upkeep, etc.) compared to the U.S. Population Hispanic Population overall population (2%) (Figure 15). As homes and apartments deteriorate physically as a Primary Source of Water Not Safe to Drink result of overcrowding, lack of maintenance or age, the 30.0 environmental triggers of asthma and other health 26.4 25.0 23.6 hazards such as lead paint and asbestos proliferate. In 23.4 23.2

New York City, housing conditions have reached crisis 20.0 proportion disproportionately affecting the City’s poor, which in New York correlate strongly with being black 15.0

11.0 and/or Latino as well as immigrant. Neighborhood data 9.7 Percentage of Households Percentage 10.0 corroborates this conclusion. Whereas for the city of 8.8 9.1

New York as a whole the percent of housing units with 5 5.0 or more maintenance deficiencies was 3% in 1999, ten

0.0 2003 neighborhoods had percentages of households with those 1997 1999 2001 deficiencies that ranged from 7% to 13%. Of these ten Figure 13 neighborhoods with above average proportions of units Uncomfortably Cold for 24hrs or more Last Winter with a high number of deficiencies, five were neighbor- 12.0 11.2 11.3 hoods with a majority Latino population and one where 10.8

v 10.0 Latinos were overrepresented. 9.4 8.8

Neighborhood conditions are also important factors 8.0 7.5 7.5 affecting the quality of life and living conditions of Latinos 7.0 and people in general. Crime is a key component of that 6.0 quality of life. In 2003, Latinos reported living in neighbor- 4.0 hoods where crime was present and was a bothersome condition at a 7% higher rate (65%) than for the US of Households with Heating Equipment Percentage 2.0 population as a whole (58%) (Figure 16). A higher percent- 0.0 2003 age of Latinos — 10% — also felt that they received 1997 1999 2001 Figure 14 unsatisfactory police protection than the overall population

(7%) (Figure 17). On the positive side, 73% of Latinos Severe Physical Problems in Unit

4.0 reported living in neighborhoods with public transportation, 3.8 3.7 and 88% was satisfied with the neighborhood shopping 3.5 options, compared to 55% and 82%, respectively, of the 3.3 2.9 overall population (Figure 18a, 18b). Consequently, 23% of 3.0 Latinos had the best possible opinion of their neighbor- 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.9 hood, while only 1% had the worst possible opinion of it 1.8

(Figure 19a, 19b). Latinos were as satisfied or as dissatis- 1.5 fied as the overall population. of Households Percentage 1.0

Latinos are also a people on the move and they 0.5

exhibit a higher rate of mobility within the United States 0.0 2003 1997 1999 2001 relative to the overall population. Twenty-two percent of Figure 15 Latinos reported moving during the previous year, Criminal Activity in Neighborhood Bothersome compared to 16% of the population as a whole (Figure 70.0 20). Overall, the effect of mobility on living conditions 68.5 68.0 for Latinos has been positive. The housing costs associ- 66.0 65.2 ated with the move have remained the same for 21% of 64.9 Latinos, has decreased for another 23% and has gone up 64.0 63.7 for 53%. But while housing costs may have gone up for 62.0 61.7 most Latinos who moved, this increase has not been 60.0 58.1 58.2 57.7 disproportionate, for 53% of the overall population that of Households Percentage 58.0 moved during the previous year also saw their housing 56.0 costs increase (Figures 21 a-c). Moreover, about three- 54.0 fifths of Latinos who moved reported moving to a better 52.0 1997 1999 2001 2003 home, compared to 54% of those in the overall population Figure 16 that moved as well (Figure 22). Furthermore, only 11% of Latinos said they moved to a worse home, compared to U.S. Population Hispanic Population 16% of the population as a whole (Figure 23). In addition, Unsatisfactory Police Protection most Latinos — 46% — report moving to a better 12.0 neighborhood and only 9% moving to a worse neighbor- 10.9

9.9 hood, compared to 41% and 12% respectively (Figures 10.0 9.6 9.7 24a, 24b). 8.1 8.0 7.5 7.2 7.3 These subjective opinions need to be handled carefully, though. They are important because they 6.0 presumably inform the decisions and the actions of

Percentage of Households Percentage 4.0 individuals. If people are not satisfied with their lot, they may be motivated to take action to correct the situation or 2.0 lead them to pursue an exit strategy (such as moving away). But people also form opinions based on the information 0.0 1997 1999 2001 2003 they have at hand, and if subjective perceptions are nor Figure 17 contrasted or measured against objective indicators, this Neighborhood with Public Transportation limited information may lead to complacency. 80.0

72.0 71.9 71.9 72.6 70.0 Once such objective indicator is the high and growing incidence of residential segregation which 60.0 55.2 54.3 54.0 54.7 Latinos are experiencing. Latinos rank second after 50.0 African Americans as the most segregated group in the

40.0 United States and, as the fifty years of experience since

30.0 Brown vs. Board of Education should show us, separate Percentage of Households Percentage still remains unequal. 20.0

10.0

0.0 1997 1999 2001 2003 Figure 18A

Satisfactory Neighborhood Shopping Worst Possible Opinion of Neighborhood

88.0 2.0 87.5 87.5 1.8 87.0 1.8 1.7 86.3 86.2 86.0 1.6

85.0 1.4

84.0 1.2

1.0 83.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 82.3 82.0 82.0 0.8 82.0 81.6 0.8 0.7 Percentage of Households Percentage Percentage of Households Percentage 81.0 0.6

80.0 0.4

79.0 0.2

78.0 0.0 1997 1999 2001 2003 1997 1999 2001 2003 Figure 18B Figure 19B

Best Possible Opinion of Neighborhood Householder Moved during Past Year within U.S.

30.0 25.0

24.6 24.6 24.5 24.5 24.5 24.9 24.5 25.0

21.8 22.2 21.9

24.0 20.0 23.8 17.1 16.5 15.7 15.9

23.5 15.0

23.0 23.0 Percentage of Households Percentage Percentage of Households Percentage 23.0 10.0

22.5 5.0

22.0 0.0 2003 1997 1999 2001 1997 1999 2001 2003 Figure 19A Figure 20

U.S. Population Hispanic Population Housing Costs Unchanged with Move New Home, Worse Home

24.0 20.0 23.5 17.8 18.0 23.0 22.8 16.6 16.8 16.0 16.0 15.6

14.2 22.0 13.7 14.0

12.0 11.4 21.0 20.7 20.5 20.5 20.6 20.2 10.0

20.0 19.7 8.0

Percentage of Households Moving Percentage 19.0 6.0 Percentage of Households Moving Percentage

4.0 18.0 2.0

17.0 0.0 1997 1999 2001 2003 1997 1999 2001 2003 Figure 21A Figure 23

Housing Costs Decrease with Move New Neighborhood, Better Neighborhood

48.0 30.0 47.4 27.5 46.4

46.0 25.0 24.0 23.1 22.4 22.5 21.5 21.9 20.9 44.0 20.0 43.3

42.6

42.0 41.8 15.0 41.4 40.7 40.4

40.0 10.0 Percentage of Households Moving Percentage Percentage of Households Moving Percentage

38.0 5.0

36.0 0.0 1997 1999 2001 2003 1997 1999 2001 2003 Figure 21B Figure 24A

New Neighborhood, Worse Neighborhood Housing Costs Increased with Move

16.0 56.0 55.0 13.8 14.0 53.8 13.0 54.0 53.5 53.4 12.5 12.5 12.2 52.5 12.0 11.7 52.0 52.0 51.6

10.0 9.3 9.3

50.0 8.0

48.0 47.4 6.0 Percentage of Households Moving Percentage

Percentage of Households Moving Percentage 46.0 4.0

2.0 44.0

0.0 42.0 1997 1999 2001 2003 1997 1999 2001 2003 Figure 21C Figure 24B

New Home, Better Home

62.0

60.0 59.5 59.5

58.0

56.6

56.0

54.1 54.0 53.7

52.8 52.9

52.0

Percentage of Households Moving Percentage 52.0

50.0

48.0 1997 1999 2001 2003 Figure 22 U.S. Population Hispanic Population In order to address the pervasive housing conditions that Latinos and others groups in this country face, additional housing is needed. An Recommendations: increase in the stock of quality housing that keeps up with the pace of population growth is crucial. More units of housing, whether new or rehabilitated, are needed in order to satisfy the demand arising from all income levels. While the market may satisfy the demand for housing at the high end of the income spectrum, dearth at the lower middle and lower end of the spectrum only places added pressure at the bottom of the market, with people of lower middle and middle income levels competing for affordable units of housing with people at the lowest income levels in the most competitive markets, such as San Francisco and the New York Metropolitan Area. For this increase in the stock of housing stock, and particularly for housing affordable to working families, including the working poor, the Federal government needs to renew its commitment to maintain and expand housing income tax credits as well as compliance with regula- tions of the Community Reinvestment Act. The Federal government must also reverse the trends of the past decade and expand the Section 8 program and increase the stock of public housing authorities. Local and state authorities need to become more vigilant in the quality of the existing housing stock and provide more anti-abandon- ment assistance to property owners whose housing is deteriorating. Home improvement loans as well as training programs that provide homeowners with the necessary skills to maintain their property in good repair need to be instituted where they are lacking or expanded where they exist. To reverse the trend by which Latino families spend a greater share of their income on housing expenses and costs, their income needs to be raised as well and, as Latinos tend to be disproportionately represented in low-wage occupations, the minimum living wage needs to be raised. Housing costs for homeowners can be reduced by lowering insur- ance rates as well as predatory lending practices that affect minority owners disproportionately. Moreover, the redistribution of educational funding sources from localities to the state and Federal governments would disencumber local governments from growing education costs financed largely by real estate/property taxes, providing relief for homeowners, particularly in poorer districts. Finally, in order to increase the rate of homeownership among lower- and middle-income families, greater reliance on limited-equity and limited-profit housing would contribute to reduced up-front costs for prospective homebuyers. The state should examine new high speed rail models that will help reduce overcrowding and the high population density in New York City. These factors create a high demand for housing that leads to increased housing costs. This high speed rail model should connect rural counties nearest to New York City and to other urban centers in the State. The impact of implementing such a transportation system will allow increased homeownership opportunities and provide affordable renting options for those presently being priced out of the housing market in urban centers. Simultaneously, such an initiative will increase the population in counties facing rapid depopulation and declining property values due to the lack of access to employment opportunities in those areas. The economic impact of such a model would benefit renters, homeowners and all of the geographic areas linked by a high speed rail system. Notes:

i American Housing Survey for the United States, 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003. US Bureau of the Census. June 10, 2004. www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/nationaldata.html Weights for 1997, 1999 and 2003 surveys based on 1980 geography. Weights for 2003 survey are consistent with Census 2000. ii See Wallin et al (2002), p. 212. Elmhurst/Corona, Jackson Heights, University Heights/Fordham, Highbridge/South Concourse, Kingsbridge Heights/Mosholu, Morrisania/Belmont, Washington Heights/ Inwood, and Lower East Side/Chinatown. iii U.S. Census Bureau, Current Housing Reports, Series H170/02-28, American Housing Survey for the Miami-Ft. Lauderdale Metropolitan Area: 2002, Table 2-3, p. 13. iv U.S. Census Bureau, Current Housing Reports, Series H170/02-12, American Housing Survey for the Phoenix Metropolitan Area: 2002, Table 2-3, p. 13 v See Wallin et al (2002), p. 204. East Harlem, University Heights/Fordham, Soundview/Parkchester, Mott Haven/Hunts Point, Bushwick, East New York/Starrett City.

Sources:

Center for Puerto Rican Studies-CUNY (2003) “Housing Emergency and Overcrowding: Latinos in New York City.” Centro Policy Brief 1(1): 1-8. Spring. Garfinkel, Irwin & Marcia K. Meyers (1999) New York City Social Indicators 1997: A Tale of Many Cities. New York, NY: Columbia University, School of Social Work, Social Indicators Survey Center, February. U.S. Census Bureau, Current Housing Reports, Series H150/03-28, American Housing Survey for the United States: 2003. U.S. Census Bureau, Current Housing Reports, Series H170/02-28, American Housing Survey for the Miami-Ft. Lauderdale Metropolitan Area: 2002. U.S. Census Bureau, Current Housing Reports, Series H170/02-12, American Housing Survey for the Phoenix Metropolitan Area: 2002. U.S. Bureau of the Census (2000). 1999 New York City Housing and Vacancy Survey. June 29. www.census.gov/hhes/www/nychvs.html Wallin, Denise, Michael Schill & Glynis Daniels, (2002). State of New York City’s Housing and Neighborhoods, 2002. New York: New York University, Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy. New York State Assembly Puerto Rican/Hispanic Task Force Assemblyman Peter M. Rivera, Chair Legislative Office Building, Room 826 Albany, New York 12248 Telephone: (518) 455-5102 FAX: (518) 455-3693