|
<br /> Page 29
<br />Everett 2044 Housing Element Appendix
<br />Category 2: Sensitfve informatfon
<br />• Middle-income renters (50–80 % AMI)
<br />– Households tfcked up slightly, from 3,730 to 4,600, an increase of around 870 households.
<br />– Affordable units jumped from 8,390 to 11,700, adding roughly 3,310 units.
<br />– The surplus therefore grew from +4,660 to +7,100 units, indicatfng contfnued—and even
<br />accelerated—productfon of mid-market rentals.
<br />• Higher-income renters (>80 % AMI)
<br />– Households dropped from 6,340 to 2,450, a steep decline of about 3,890 households.
<br />– Affordable units edged up slightly from 1,555 to 1,980, a gain of about 425 units.
<br />– The shortiall narrowed dramatfcally from –4,785 to –470 units, meaning the deficit of higher-
<br />AM I rentals has all but vanished in this latest period.
<br />In sum, since 2015–19, supply and demand have both shifled downward at the lower- and moderate-
<br />income levels—but the drop in households has outpaced the loss of units on the very low end (reducing
<br />that shortiall) while the reverse holds at 30–50 % AMI (shrinking the surplus). Meanwhile, middle-
<br />market productfon has accelerated, and the “market-rate” segment (>80 % AMI) has rebalanced almost
<br />entfrely. Those dynamics suggest recent development has disproportfonately served the 50–80 %
<br />segment, while both the deepest affordability gap and the moderate-income “oversupply” corridor have
<br />begun to compress.
<br />To analyze who is impacted the most by the shortiall in units for those earning less than 30% AMI,
<br />income data by race is shown below. Chart 5 shows that, across all Everett households from 2015–2019,
<br />income is fairly evenly spread below and above area median income: about one-fiflh (21 %) earn under
<br />30 % of AMI, another 20 % fall in the 30–50 % band, 15 % in the 50–80 % band, 12 % in the 80–100 %
<br />band, and the largest single share (33 %) live above 100 % of AMI.
<br />White, non-Hispanic households mirror this overall pattern almost exactly, with 20 % extremely low-
<br />income, 18 % very low, 14 % low, 13 % moderate, and 35 % above median income. Asian, non-Hispanic
<br />households skew more heavily toward higher incomes: only about one-fiflh fall below 30 % of AMI,
<br />another fiflh in the 30–50 % range, and a full 40 % sit above median income, reflectfng a strong presence
<br />in the city’s most aftfuent tfer.
<br />By contrast, Hispanic households (of any race) concentrate in the lower-middle bands: 20 % under 30 %
<br />AMI, 30 % between 30–50 % AMI, and 21 % in the 50–80 % bracket, with just 9 % earning 80–100 % of
<br />AMI and 20 % above it. Black or African-American, non-Hispanic households likewise bear a heavier
<br />income burden below AMI: 15 % in the lowest bracket and 27 % in the next, though 29 % stfll earn above
<br />median.
<br />The most acute economic vulnerability appears among Pacific Islander and American Indian/Alaska
<br />Natfve households. More than half of Pacific Islander households (58 %) earn under 30 % of AMI, and
<br />none exceed 100 % of AMI. Similarly, American Indian/Alaska Natfve households see 27 % under 30 %
<br />AMI and 44 % in the 30–50 % band, with just 15 % above median income.
<br />
|