PAGE 1

THE STATE OF FLORIDASHousing 2003 D ouglas White Florida Housing Data Clearinghouse, Shimberg Center, University of Florida J anet Galvez Shimberg Center, University of Florida Dean Gatzlaff Real Estate Center, Florida State University J im Martinez Florida Housing Data Clearinghouse, Shimberg Center, University of Florida M argaret Murray Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Florida Atlantic University D iep Nguyen F lorida Housing Data Clearinghouse, S himberg Center, U niversity of Florida W illiam O'Dell Florida Housing Data Clearinghouse, Shimberg Center, University of Florida Ma rc T. Smith Shimberg Center, University of FloridaMajor funding for this report provided by the State of Florida. Florida Housing DataClearinghouse Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing, M. E. Rinker, Sr. School of Building Construction, College of Design, Construction & Planning University of Florida www.shimberg.ufl.edu REVISED FEBRUARY 2004

PAGE 2

This publication, as well as an Appendix containing estimates of housing supply and the affordability index for each of Florida's sixty-seven counties, are available on the I nternet at www.flhousingdata.shimberg.ufl.edu.The Appendix also may be purchased from the Shimberg C enter for $15.00 to cover reproduction and mailing costs.

PAGE 3

1F lorida Housing Data Clearinghouse, Shimberg Center for Affordable H ousing, M. E. Rinker, Sr. School of Building Construction, College of D esign, Construction and Planning, University of Florida, www.shimberg.ufl.edu/M ajor funding for this report provided by the State of FloridaD ouglas White F lorida Housing Data Clearinghouse S himberg Center U niversity of Florida J anet Galvez S himberg Center U niversity of Florida D ean Gatzlaff R eal Estate Center F lorida State University Ji m Martinez F lorida Housing Data Clearinghouse S himberg Center U niversity of Florida Mar garet Murray D epartment of Urban and Regional Planning F lorida Atlantic University Diep Nguyen F lorida Housing Data Clearinghouse S himberg Center U niversity of Florida W illiam O'Dell F lorida Housing Data Clearinghouse S himberg Center U niversity of Florida Marc T. Smith S himberg Center U niversity of Florida The State of Florida'sHousing 2003

PAGE 5

O ne of the primary objectives of the Florida Housing Data Clearinghouse is to provide state and local policy makers and program planners with a centralized source for estimates of current housing supply. The Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing wishes to acknowledge the continued support of the Florida H ousing Finance Corporation for the preparation of this report titled The State of F lorida's Housing, 2003 We also acknowledge the valuable input provided by the members of the Clearinghouse Technical Advisory Committee. This group of dedicated technical advisors represents a broad range of interests in Florida's housing supply. The databases and reports produced by the Florida Housing Data Clearinghouse are publicly accessible on the Internet at www.shimberg.ufl.edu At the home page of the web site, select "Fla. Housing Data" to access all available materials including county-specific data. We welcome comments to make the r eport more valuable. R obert C. Stroh, Jr., Ph. D. Di r ector, Shimberg Center A cknowledgement

PAGE 7

1 Contents1.0 Introduction.............................................................................................................. .........3 2.0 Population Change: Race/Ethnicity and Housing...............................................................4 2.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................. ..4 2.2 Population................................................................................................................ ...5 2.3 Headship and Homeownership....................................................................................5 2.4 Race/Ethnic Differences in Housing..........................................................................11 2.5 Local Responses: Broward County.............................................................................12 2.6 Local Responses: Orlando MSA.................................................................................13 2.7 Conclusion................................................................................................................. 13 A ppendix 2.1 Using State and Local Area Census Data.....................................................22 A ppendix 2.2 Understanding Current Conditions............................................................23 A ppendix 2.3 Examining Change.....................................................................................25 3.0 Florida's Housing Supply.................................................................................................. 27 3.1 Data Description.......................................................................................................27 3.2 Single-family Housing...............................................................................................29 3.3 Condominiums.........................................................................................................42 3.4 Multifamily Housing.................................................................................................52 3.5 Impact of Housing on the Florida Economy..............................................................53 3.6 Summary................................................................................................................... 53 4.0 Housing Prices and Affordability......................................................................................54 4.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................. 54 4.2 Housing Affordability Index......................................................................................54 4.3 Cost Burden..............................................................................................................5 9 5.0 Florida House Price Trends: Market Comparisons and Forecasts.......................................61 5.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................. 61 5.2 Statewide Measures of Single-Family House Prices in Florida....................................61 5.3 District-Level Measures of Single-Family House Price Appreciation in Florida...........64 5.4 MSA-Level Measures of Single-Family House Price Appreciation in Florida..............65 5.5 County-Level Measures of House Price Appreciation in Florida.................................68 5.6 Forecasts of Stateand MSA-Level House Price Changes...........................................68 6.0 Conclusion................................................................................................................. .......80T ables2.1 Percentage Change in Total Population and Immigrant Population by County................6-9 2.2 Broward County: Housing and Population........................................................................17 2.3 Pembrooke Pines Racial/Ethnic Housing Profile................................................................17 2.4 Pembrooke Pines: Selected Housing Data..........................................................................18 2.5 Orange County: Selected Housing Characteristics.............................................................21 2.6 Orlando: Selected Current Housing Characteristics...........................................................21 2.7 Orlando: Selected Current Population Characteristics........................................................22 2.8 Orlando: Racial/Ethnic Housing Profile............................................................................23 2.9 Selected Current Population Characteristics by Race/Ethnicity..........................................23 The State of Florida'sHousing 2003

PAGE 8

2The State of Florida'sHousing 2003 2.10 Selected Current Housing Characteristics...............................................................24 2.11 Mirmar, Census Tract 1105: Changes in Housing...................................................25 2.12 Mirmar, Census Tract 1105: Population Change by Race/Ethnicity........................25 3.1 Single-family Housing Stock................................................................................32-35 3.2 Condominium Housing Stock.............................................................................38-41 3.3 Multifamily Housing Stock with Two to Nine Units in Complex........................44-47 3.4 Multifamily Housing Stock with Ten or more Units in Complex.........................48-51 4.1 Affordability Index...............................................................................................57-58 4.2 Affordability Index Ranking 1999.............................................................................59 4.3 Cost Burden.............................................................................................................60 5.1 Summary of Florida House Price Appreciation,........................................................63 5.2 Average Annual Percentage Appreciation and Period Rankings by District................65 5.3 Annual House Price Indices for Florida Districts.......................................................66 5.4 Annual House Price Appreciation (%) for Florida Districts.......................................67 5.5 Correlation of Annual Appreciation Rates between Districts.....................................67 5.6 Average Annual Percentage Appreciation and Period Rankings By MSA...................69 5.7 Annual House Price Indices for Florida Metropolitan Statistical Areas.................70-71 5.8 Annual House Price Appreciation (%) for Florida Metropolitan Statistical Areas.72-73 5.9 Correlation of Annual Appreciation Rates between MSAs....................................72-73 5.10 Average Annual Percentage Appreciation and Period Rankings By County..............75 5.11 Annual House Price Appreciation (%) for Selected Counties.............................76-77 5.12 Explaining Past Changes in Real Single-Family House Prices.............................76-77 5.13 Average Annual Percentage Appreciation and Period Rankings By MSA.................78 5.14 District, MSA and Counties listed by District Location..........................................79FiguresF igure 2.1 Percentage of Population that is Foreign Born in 2000.....................................5 F igure 2.2 Percentage Change in Foreign Born Population 1990 to 2000.......................10 F igure 2.3 Contribution of New Foreign Born to Population Growth 1990 to 2000......11 F igure 2.4 Florida Headship Rate by Race/Ethnicity and Age.........................................12 F igure 2.5 Florida Homeownership Rate by Race/Ethnicity and Age..............................13 F igure 2.5A Headship and Homeownership Rate: White non-Hispanic by Age..............14 F igure 2.5B Headship and Homeownership Rate: Black non-Hispanic by Age...............14 F igure 2.5C Headship and Homeownership Rate: Hispanic by Age................................14 F igure 2.6 Broward County Hispanic Households as a Percentage of all H ouseholds by Census Tract..................................................................................15 F igure 2.7 Broward County Hispanic Households Percent Change in the Number of H ouseholds 1990-2000.........................................................................................16 F igure 2.8 Orlando MSA Hispanic Households as a Percentage of all Households by Census Tract......................................................................................................19 F igure 2.9 Orlando MSA Households Percent Change in the Number of H ouseholds 1990-2000.........................................................................................20 F igure 3.1 Percentage of State's Single-Family Housing Stock..........................................30 F igure 3.2 Median 2001 Sales Price Single-Family Home...............................................31 F igure 3.3 Percentage of State's Condominium Stock......................................................42 F igure 3.4 Median 2001 Sales Price for Condominiums.................................................43 F igure 5.1 Florida Annual House Price Index and Appreciation......................................62 F igure 5.2 Florida Annual House Price Appreciation......................................................63 F igure 5.3 Average Annual House Price Appreciation......................................................64

PAGE 9

3 1. IntroductionThis study is a compendium of facts on Florida's housing. The data highlight the tremendous diversity in housing characteristics across the state, particularly between the 35 urban counties and the 32 rural counties, as w ell as between coastal and non-coastal counties. The characteristics of Florida's housing reflect the characteristics of the state's population. The population of the state is growing, creating a demand for additional housing, yet that growth is not distributed uniformly across the state. Gr ow th is most often a coastal phenomenon. Further, the nature of the growth differs across the state as characterized by age, income, race, ethnicity, and county of origin. The following report is divided into four sections that examine the effect of immigration on the housing stock, F lorida's housing stock, the affordability of the housing stock, and price trends and forecasts for Florida's housing stock. Over the last ten years, Florida has had a large influx in immigration with many of those immigrants entering the country between 1990 and 2000. These recently arriving immigrants have made up a large part of population growth in many of the counties, with all but one county, J ackson, experiencing an increase in the number of foreign born residents. In seven of Florida's counties, these new arrivals made up over thirty-five percent of the counties population growth over the last decade. Section 2 of the report examines how local housing markets have changed to adjust to this new market. Pr operty appraiser data files are used to examine Florida's housing stock in S ection 3. First the housing stock is separated into three broad categories, single-family housing, condominiums, and multi-family housing, which is further separated into complexes with two to nine units and complexes with ten or more units. This separation highlights the difference between the rural, urban, and coastal counties. S ingle-family housing units dominate, but condominiums are an important source of housing in some coastal counties and manufactured housing play a key role in rural counties in the interior of the state. Other broad trends are discussed in this section including the total number of units, the median age of units, and the median sales price of units in each county. The coastal and large urban counties tend to have the largest number of units and the highest median sales prices when compared to the rest of the state. The issue of housing affordability is examined in Section 4. The most affordable housing is generally located in rural counties in the interior and northern part of the state. In general, the least affordable counties are either coastal counties or located in major metropolitan areas. Besides examining the individual counties, Section 4 examines affordability at the state level and finds that after years of increasing affordability, housing became less affordable in Florida over the last year. This decline in affordability is likely due to the fact that housing prices have continued to appreciate rapidly in the state while personal income has experienced little growth over the last two years. The movement in house prices and the rate of appreciation in housing is discussed in Section 5. Florida is currently experiencing the highest fiveyear real rate of increase in housing prices that it has ever seen. House prices have increased by almost 4.0 percent per year ov er and above the general rate of inflation the last five years. Housing prices are predicted to continue rising with the southern portion of the state and the six largest metropolitan areas

PAGE 10

4The State of Florida'sHousing 2003 experiencing higher than average increases, and lower than average price increases forecast in the northwest part of the state. This report first discusses immigrations effect on the state's housing stock. Second, it details characteristics of the housing stock in the state. Third, it discusses issues in the affordability of housing in the state. Finally, it discusses the movement in house prices and the rate of appreciation in housing. The expectation is that the information included in this study will help readers to understand the diversity, the needs, the public policy concerns, and the opportunities of Florida's many housing markets.2. Population Change: Race/Ethnicity and HousingM argaret Murray, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Florida Atlantic University2.1 IntroductionThe state of Florida is a mosaic of racial and ethnic groups making a place for themselves and their families. While many areas of the state are rural and the population predominately white, the urban areas are home to an increasingly diverse population. In 1990 minorities constituted 26.8 percent of the state's population and in 2000 34.6 percent. This chapter examines minority r esidential patterns in Florida and evaluates how those patterns have changed over time. Also presented is a brief discussion of the availability and use of the US Census of Population and H ousing data for 1990 and 2000. D uring the 38 years since the 1965 passage of amendments to the 1952 I mmigration and Nationality Act, the number of foreign born in the United S tates has increased substantially. In contrast to earlier policies, this amendment identified family r eunification as the main preference category for entry. This preference continues today, although legislation passed in 2001 also gives additional preference to certain workers with technical skills needed in US industries. O ur discussion uses data primarily from the 2000 Census; the term foreign born used in this report has the same meaning as the census definition which is found in the footnote below.1 The term "new foreign born" used in this report means that portion of the foreign born population who entered the U.S. from 1990 to 2000. F lorida is one of the high immigration states. However, South Florida is no longer the only focal point of Florida's racially and ethnically diverse neighborhoods. Data collected in the 2000 Census illustrates how the population of Florida is changing everywhere from the P anhandle to the Keys. As illustrated in Table 2.1 and Figures 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3, all but one of Florida's counties, Jackson, saw an increase in the total number of foreign born and all counties saw an increase in foreign born entering the U.S. in the last ten years. While Miami-Dade County saw the largest increase in absolute numbers of foreign born (over 273,000 people), several counties, mostly small or rural, saw increases over 200 percent. Large percentage increases weren't restricted to small counties, however. There were increases in the number of foreign born of over 150 percent in Orange and Collier and over 200 percent in Osceola. 1 The foreign-born population includes all people who were not U.S. citizens at birth. Foreign-born people are those who indicated they were either a U.S. citizen by naturalization or they were not a citizen of the United States. Census 2000 does not ask about immigration status. The population surveyed includes all people who indicated that the United States was their usual place of residence on the census date. The foreign-born population includes: immigrants (legal permanent residents), temporary migrants (e.g., students), humanitarian migrants (e.g., refugees), and unauthorized migrants (people illegally residing in the United States).

PAGE 11

5 2.2 PopulationThe level of immigration during the 1990s particularly impacted several counties in the state those in which new foreign born were a substantial portion of the total population increase over the decade. Using the ratio of new foreign born to total population change as an indicator there were seven counties in which new foreign born represented 35 percent2 or more of the population increase from 1990 to 2000: Monroe, Mi ami-Dade, Desoto, Pinellas, Broward, H endry, and Hardee. Among these seven are some of the largest and smallest counties in the state. Miami-Dade and Br ow ard counties alone accounted for ov er 56 percent of the new foreign population. The total population in the seven counties varies from a low of 26,938 in Hardee County to a high of 2,253,362 in Miami-Dade. Figure 2.3 illustrates the extent to which population growth over the decade was driven by the influx of new foreign born in these seven counties. In two of the seven counties, Monroe and Miami-Dade, the increase in new foreign born exceeded the total population growth over the decade. Since many new foreign born are young, this level of change leads us to ask questions about homeownership rates, and the type and availability of housing. We examine five of the seven counties, two large Broward and M iami-Dade and three small DeSoto, H endry and Hardee in more detail later in this report. Because the structure of the currently released census data does not permit us to focus on just the immigrant population, the remainder of this chapter will consider the similarities and differences between the three largest racial/ethnic groups in the state, White, non-Hispanic; Black, non-Hispanic; and H ispanic or Latino.2.3 Headship and HomeownershipThe assessment of housing needs is typically based on population projections. This estimation frequently considers specific subpopulations such as the elderly or low-income. Until recently, however, little thought has been given to differences in housing consumption by different racial or ethnic components of the population. It is generally accepted that as individuals reach maturity they tend to leave home and form new households. Most enter the housing market as renters and after some years move to homeownership. In a multiethnic area, understanding how the different racial/ethnic age cohorts contribute to household growth is key to predicting both renter and owner household growth.Figure 2.1 Percentage of Population that is Foreign Born in 2000 2 The state average is 34 percent and these are the counties at the 90th percentile and above.

PAGE 12

6The State of Florida's Housing, 2003 Table 2.1 Change in PopulationNumericalPercent ChangeNumerical% Change Change in Totalin TotalChange, Totalin Total PopulationPopulationForeign BornForeign Born 1990-20001990-20001990-20001990-2000 COUNTY Alachua County3635920.0%521648.8% Baker County377320.4%10977.3% Bay County2122316.7%106024.5% Bradford County357315.9%234104.0% Brevard County7725219.4%1003947.9% Broward County36753029.3%212113107.0% Calhoun County200618.2%194210.9% Charlotte County3065227.6%427460.9% Citrus County2457026.3%116225.4% Clay County3482832.9%304091.7% Collier County9927865.3%30168189.7% Columbia County1390032.6%61186.7% DeSoto County834435.0%4720358.4% Dixie County324230.6%194220.5% Duval County10590815.7%2234195.8% Escambia County3161212.0%379554.0% Flagler County2113173.6%2582108.7% Franklin County209023.3%4930.4% Gadsden County39829.7%1347268.9% Gilchrist County477049.3%128104.1% Glades County298539.3%494143.2% Gulf County182815.9%12988.4% Hamilton County239721.9%12066.7% Hardee County743938.2%3475283.2% Hendry County1043740.5%4929130.7% Hernando County2968729.4%136224.4% Highlands County1893427.7%4778152.5% Hillsborough County16489419.8%5179881.8% Holmes County278617.7%9441.6% Indian River County2273925.2%362965.7% Jackson County538013.0%-218-23.6% Jefferson County160614.2%4539.5% Lafayette County144425.9%240106.2% Lake County5842438.4%5525104.3%

PAGE 13

7 Foreign BornForeign Born"New" ForeignNew Foreign as a % of% of TotalBorn (enteredBorn as a % of T otal PopulationPopulationU.S. 1990-Population Change 20001990March 2000)1990-2000 7.3%5.9%815022.4% 1.1%0.8%832.2% 3.6%3.4%15387.2% 1.8%1.0%862.4% 6.5%5.3%808110.5% 25.3%15.8%16786045.7% 2.2%0.8%814.0% 8.0%6.3%22777.4% 4.9%4.9%9804.0% 4.5%3.1%18155.2% 18.3%10.5%2387724.1% 2.3%1.7%4052.9% 18.7%5.5%400548.0% 2.0%0.8%722.2% 5.9%3.5%1960518.5% 3.7%2.7%358311.3% 9.9%8.3%9634.6% 1.9%1.8%512.4% 4.1%1.2%75719.0% 1.7%1.3%1012.1% 7.9%4.5%2337.8% 2.1%1.3%925.0% 2.3%1.6%1777.4% 17.5%6.3%258934.8% 24.0%14.6%433241.5% 5.3%5.5%11754.0% 9.1%4.6%349518.5% 11.5%7.6%4905429.7% 1.7%1.4%702.5% 8.1%6.1%319914.1% 1.5%2.2%1462.7% 1.2%1.0%40.2% 6.6%4.1%31922.1% 5.1%3.5%39146.7%

PAGE 14

8The State of Florida's Housing, 2003 COUNTY Lee County10577531.6%22912131.3% Leon County4695924.4%430661.2% Levy County852732.9%28847.5% Liberty County145226.1%91165.5% Madison County216413.1%279300.0% Manatee County5229524.7%1085695.4% Marion County6408332.9%636791.2% Martin County2583125.6%344350.1% Miami-Dade County31626816.3%27319631.2% Monroe County15652.0%385048.8% Nassau County1372231.2%831117.0% Okaloosa County2672218.6%279945.3% Okeechobee County628321.2%2257120.4% Orange County21885332.3%77849152.5% Osceola County6476560.1%16453214.9% Palm Beach County26766631.0%9154986.9% Pasco County6363422.6%747144.8% Pinellas County698238.2%2727345.1% Polk County7854219.4%19113132.7% Putnam County53538.2%95667.6% St. Johns County3930646.9%298097.4% St. Lucie County4252428.3%10647111.9% Santa Rosa County3613544.3%1781100.7% Sarasota County4818117.3%1376182.6% Seminole County7766727.0%1525084.6% Sumter County2176868.9%2326380.1% Suwannee County806430.1%1218294.9% T aylor County214512.5%160100.6% Union County319031.1%3614.5% V olusia County7263119.6%701332.9% W akulla County866161.0%16294.2% W alton County1284146.3%856187.7% W ashington County405424.0%12230.7% State Total3,044,45223.5%1,008,22760.6%T able 2.1 Change in Population (continued)NumericalPercent ChangeNumerical% Change Change in Totalin TotalChange, Totalin Total PopulationPopulationForeign BornForeign Born 1990-20001990-20001990-20001990-2000

PAGE 15

9 9.2%5.2%1785816.9% 4.7%3.7%509510.8% 2.6%2.3%2773.2% 2.1%1.0%876.0% 2.0%0.6%1888.7% 8.4%5.4%980318.7% 5.2%3.6%33185.2% 8.1%6.8%367314.2% 50.9%45.1%416059131.6% 14.7%10.1%4869311.1% 2.7%1.6%5734.2% 5.3%4.3%22918.6% 11.5%6.3%204832.6% 14.4%7.5%5903327.0% 14.0%7.1%1105717.1% 17.4%12.2%8178830.6% 7.0%5.9%690210.8% 9.5%7.1%3284147.0% 6.9%3.6%1450518.5% 3.4%2.2%88116.5% 4.9%3.6%13953.5% 10.5%6.3%733317.2% 3.0%2.2%10332.9% 9.3%6.0%1121923.3% 9.1%6.3%1200515.5% 5.5%1.9%8283.8% 4.7%1.5%103612.8% 1.7%0.9%683.2% 2.1%2.4%892.8% 6.4%5.8%849211.7% 1.5%1.2%750.9% 3.2%1.6%4293.3% 2.5%2.4%1323.3% 16.7%12.9%1,030,44933.8% Foreign BornForeign Born"New" ForeignNew Foreign as a % of% of TotalBorn (enteredBorn as a % of T otal PopulationPopulationU.S. 1990-Population Change 20001990March 2000)1990-2000

PAGE 16

10The State of Florida'sHousing 2003 The formation of independent households by minorities is commonly thought to take place at a later age than it does for whites. There are a number of reasons for this. These include both the cultural traditions of specific ethnic groups and the economic realities associated with education and employment opportunities. However, at least at the State level in age groups from 25 through 74, Blacks form independent households at a slightly higher rate than do Whites or Hispanics. As seen in F igure 2.4, the rate of household formation is about identical for Blacks and Whites in the 15-24 year age group. In the 24-35 year age group, Blacks have a higher rate of household headship than do Whites. This trend continues up to the 75-84 year age group when White headship rates exceed that of Blacks. In every age group, Hispanics become household heads at a much lower rate. The number of household heads is the sum of both owner and renter households. Two issues of importance relative to calculating headship rates for racial/ethnic groups with large numbers of foreign born are the age of the foreign born upon arrival in the U.S. and the duration of residence in the U.S. The housing behavior of non-native residents who arrive in this country as children is more likely to mirror that of persons born in the U.S. than is the housing behavior of foreign born who arrive in this country as adults. Unfortunately, these data are not readily available from the Census.Figure 2.2 Percentage Change in Forein Born Population, 1990-2000

PAGE 17

11 2.4 Racial/Ethnic Differences in HousingThe continuing influx of new residents to the state has increased the demand for housing. This demand is being met to a large degree by Florida's ve ry active home construction industry. There are now over 7.3 million housing units in the state. This is 1,657,350 more than there were in 1990. Over 65 percent of these new housing units are owner occupied. However, homeownership may be difficult for many of Florida's new foreign born because of lack of knowledge about the housing market, income, credit issues and an inability to speak English fluently. There are a number of differences between the housing choices of Whites, B lacks, and Hispanics. Although we can examine the results of housing choices, we can only speculate on the reasons behind those choices and the extent to which local housing markets accommodate various racial/ethnic groups and income levels. A major housing choice consideration for most households is structure type. State level data indicates that over 54 percent of B lacks and 58 percent of Whites occupy single-family detached units. However, only 46 percent of the Hispanics do so. The median value of owner occupied housing in 2000 was $110,300 for Whites, $78,400 for Blacks and $113,000 for Hispanics. Using a standard of crowding that identifies units as crowded when occupancy rises above one person per room, we find 15 percent of Black-occupied units, 23 percent of H ispanic-occupied units, and 2 percent of White-occupied classified as ov ercrowded. Evidence suggests that for some racial/ethnic groups the one person per room standard may be too stringent as larger households are the norm. The transition from rental housing to homeownership is triggered by a number of different life events such as marriage, the birth of a child, or an increase in income. However sizable differences exist between various racial/ethnic groups r elative to the attainment of homeownership. To calculate just the ow nership rate, we divide the number of household heads who are owners in each age category by the total number of individuals in that age category. The ow nership rate will always be lower than the total headship rate because some of the household heads are renters. Usi ng state level data, Figure 2.5 illustrates the ownership rate by race/ ethnicity. In every age group the homeowner-ship rate for White exceeds that of Black or Hispanic. In the 24-35 year age group and in the 35-44 year ageFigure 2.3 Contribution of New Foreign Born to Population Growth, 1990-2000

PAGE 18

12The State of Florida'sHousing 2003 group, Black and Hispanic homeownership rates are relatively close together. Beyond that the ownership rates for Hispanic is significantly lower than for either White or Black. Estimates of future population growth at each age level combined with estimates of headship or ownership rates for each specific age group and racial/ ethnic category produces an approximation of housing needs for both rental and owner occupied housing. The housing needs number can then be compared with the existing housing stock and anticipated future construction of both rental and owner occupied dwellings. F igures 2.5A, 2.5B, and 2.5C illustrates the homeownership rate for different racial/ethnic groups in the seven high immigration counties (Broward, Miami-Dade, DeSoto, Hardee, and He ndry). Homeownership attainment for White, nonH ispanics generally exceeds that of Black, non-Hispanics or Hispanics. And, as with the state data, Hispanics have lower homeowner-ship rates than do the other groups. In De Soto and Hardee Counties the highest homeownership rate is in the 55-64 age group. This may reflect the character of these counties as "good places to retire." In most of the five counties the percent of owner occupied housing units increased. The next section examines racial/ ethnic differences in housing in two areas of the state that grew significantly in the 1990s due to the immigrant influx.2.5 Local Responses: Broward CountyThe Broward County portion of the M iami-Fort Lauderdale MSA had over 740,000 housing units in 2000, a growth rate of 18 percent since 1990 (see Table 2.2). There were 84,780 new singlefamily homes and 27,603 multi-family units built in Broward County between 1990 and March of 2000. Large homebuilding corporations constructed most of the single-family units in the western part of the county where large tracts of open land were still available. These corporations frequently targeted the growing Hispanic population in their advertising campaigns as well as in their subdivision design. The total foreign born population in Br o ward County more than doubled during the 1990s. Many of those new foreign born located in the MiramarP embrooke Pines area of the county (further discussion is found in the A ppendix to this section). The cities of M iramar and Pembrooke Pines are located in the southern part of Broward County. The southern boundary of M iramar is contiguous with the Broward/ M iami-Dade county line and Pembrooke P ines lies directly north of Miramar. Both of these cities experienced rapid growth in population and housing units during the past decade. The population in Pe mbrooke Pines alone grew by an astounding 106 percent. As seen in Table 2.3 most of the population change is a result of the increase in both Black, nonH ispanic and Hispanic people moving into the area. Figures 2.6 and 2.7 illustrate the census tracts in 1990 and 2000 with respect to the Hispanic population. These maps illustrate where the Hispanic population settled during the decade. 3 One builder, Lisa Maxwell, Director of Redevelopment for the Lennar Corporation and former Executive Director of the Builders' Association of South Florida, commented about accommodating the racial and ethnic diversity found in South Florida. She noted that in planning new housing it was important to think about how people use space. For example, some racial/ethnic groups may be more likely to live in extended families therefore it is important to design floor plans that respect that family structure. B B B B B B B B J J J J J J J J H H H H H H H H15-2425-3435-4445-5455-6465-7475-8485+ 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 BWhite JBlack HHispanic Figure 2.4 Florida Headship Rate by Race/ Ethnicity and Age

PAGE 19

13 In fact, the May 19, 2003 issue of USA Today included Pembrooke Pines in a front-page article titled New Br ooklyns' replace white suburbs. The article highlighted a number of cities throughout the country that are now home to an increasingly diverse population. This racial and ethnic diversity means that for much of the population English is a second language and it is not typically the language spoken at home. Other differences include larger households and the need for larger housing units. The average household size for the Black and Hispanic community is 2.97 and 3.19 respectively while for White households it is 2.28 persons per household. H ome construction in the City of P embrooke Pines exploded during the 1990s. By March of 2000, there were ov er 93 percent more homes in the City than existed prior to 1990. Table 2.4 compares 1990 housing unit data to 2000 data for the City. The number of large and small units increased dramatically. The number of efficiency units increased by 392 percent and one bedroom units grew by 246 percent. The number of homes with four and five or more bedrooms also grew appreciably. Over 7000 homes with seven or more rooms were added to the housing stock.32.6 Local Responses: Orlando MSAThe Orlando metro area is made up of four counties: Orange, Seminole, Lake, and Osceola. Orange County is the most metropolitan of the four counties and it is home to the City of Orlando, the county seat. Orange County gained more than 59,000 new foreign born in the past decade and total population increased by 32 percent. As presented in T able 2.5 both the Black and Hispanic population grew considerably. Overall, construction of new housing units appears to have kept pace with the population change as the number of total housing units increased by 28 percent. M ost of those new homes were built to accommodate the need for additional single-family housing. Figures 2.8 and 2.9 illustrate the change in Hispanic population by census tract in the four-county Orlando metro area. M any of the new foreign born settled in the City of O rlando. However, in contrast to the county, most of the new housing units in Orlando are multi-family units rather than single-family units. Owner occupation increased only 12 percent while renter occupation increased by 38 percent (see T able 2.6). The largest increase by unit size took place in one and two room units. The racial/ethnic mix in the City of Orlando is changing. This mix is presented in Table 2.7. Orlando is definitely more of a racial/ethnic melting pot today than it was in 1990. The Black population increased by 18 percent and the Hispanic population by 140 percent from 1990 through 1999. The major increase in households occurred in oneperson households. Data presented in T able 2.8 indicates that the largest H ispanic group is Puerto Rican with 6,234 households and an average household size of 2.7. It is also interesting, that in general all Hispanic household and family sizes are larger than White households and families but comparable to Black households and families. The median income level in the city is $35,732 but lower for Blacks at $25,447, and for Hispanics at $29,347.2.7 ConclusionOver the past decade, the population of Florida has increased dramatically. This increase is fueled by continued migration of residents of northern states looking for warm winter weather and by the almost constant flow of foreign born B B B B B B B B J J J J J J J J H H H H H H H H15-2425-3435-4445-5455-6465-7475-8485+ 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 BWhite JBlack HHispanic Figure 2.5 Florida Homeownership Rate by Race/Ethnicity and Age

PAGE 20

14The State of Florida'sHousing 2003 BHeadship JHomeownership B B B B B B B B J J J J J J J J15-2425-3435-4445-5455-6465-7475-8485+ 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 Figure 2.5B Headship and Homeownership Rate: Black, Non-Hispanic by Age B B B B B B B B J J J J J J J J15-2425-3435-4445-5455-6465-7475-8485+ 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6Figure 2.5C Headship and Homeownership Rate: Hispanic by Age B B B B B B B B J J J J J J J J15-2425-3435-4445-5455-6465-7475-8485+ 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 Figure 2.5A Headship and Homeownership Rate: White, Non-Hispanic by Age

PAGE 21

15 Figure 2.6 Broward County Hispanic Households as a Percentage of all Households by Census Tract

PAGE 22

16The State of Florida'sHousing 2003 Figure 2.7 Broward County Hispanic Households Percent Change in the Number of Households (1990-2000)

PAGE 23

17 T able 2.2 Broward County: Housing and Population19902000Change Housing % Change in Stock62866074104318% % Change in Single Family27597836075831% Median Value$91,800$102,80012% Ratio of median value to stateNA1.10NA Households52786065478724% A verage Household Size2.372.453% Population T otal Population1255488162301829% White9425299416740% Black18760832530573% Hispanic105668271523157% Economic Median Household Income$32,728$41,69127% Ratio of median income to state1.101.07-2% T able 2.3 Pembroke Pines: Racial/Ethnic Housing Profile 2000 Occupied Units Average Size OwnerRenterHouseholdsFamilies White non-Hispanic2614152282.282.86 Black non-Hispanic403017052.973.38 Hispanic955825973.193.40 Cuban38615493.063.35 Mexican196982.923.29 Puerto Rican17366013.003.38 South American18316883.533.72

PAGE 24

18The State of Florida'sHousing 2003 T able 2.4 Pembroke Pines: Selected Housing DataHousing Units19902000Change T otal Units 286655529393% Single Family1614534018111% Multi-family125202127570% T otal Occupied Units262135198198% Owner Occupied2043441636104% Renter Occupied57791034579% Age of Units 1990 March 200027735 1980s14246 1970s9011 1960s3447 Pre 19601064 Number of rooms 1 127625392% 2 7852717246% 3 30946853121% 4 82521105334% 5 59001072682% 6 4404803182% 7 36817674108% 8 1662302882% 9 +7592586241% Number of Bedrooms 0 1471227735% 1 3945746589% 2 130491926548% 3 88551691391% 4 24718972263% 5 +1971451637% Median Gross Rent$667$94542% Median Value$93,800$122,70031% Ratio Median Value to County1.021.1917%

PAGE 25

19 Figure 2.8 Orlando MSA Hispanic Households as a Percentage of All Households by Census Tracts (1990 & 2000) 1990 2000

PAGE 26

20The State of Florida'sHousing 2003 Figure 2.9 Orlando MSA Hispanic Households Percent Change in the Number of Households (1990-2000)

PAGE 27

21 T able 2.5 Orange County: Selected Housing Characteristics19902000Change Housing % Change in Stock28268636134928% % Change in Single Family17207027207058% Median Value$85,751$100,30017% Ratio of median value to stateNA1.08NA Households25486233636632% A verage Household Size2.662.660% Population67749189634432% White4975675160244% Black10044315591255% Hispanic53087168191217% Economic Median Household Income$31,708$41,31130% Ratio of median income to state1.070.99-7% Number of rooms 1 1921379998% 2 5242945380% 3 112921534236% 4 16954184409% 5 149291716515% 6 105581202314% 7 5142685633% 8 312531832% 9 +1757238236% Number of Bedrooms 0 2485478292% 1 156692071032% 2 277033299919% 3 207312344413% 4 4615591228% 5 +71878910% Median Gross Rent$494$70042% Median Value$74,815$97,40030% Ratio Median Value to County0.870.9712% T able 2.6 Orlando: Selected Housing Characteristics19902000Change Housing Units T otal Units719208863625% Single Family35958389448% Multi-family359624969238% T otal Occupied Units647138102025% Owner Occupied295083305212% Renter Occupied352054796836% Age of Units 1990 March 200018840 1980s22769 1970s14457 1960s11560 Pre 196023225

PAGE 28

22The State of Florida'sHousing 2003 looking for economic opportunity. The level of foreign migration has changed the music we hear on the radio, the food we eat in restaurants, and the neighborhoods in our urban areas. N eighborhoods that were once predominately white and elderly are now multi-racial and younger. As foreign born settle into this country, they will increasingly pursue the opportunity to ow n a home of their own. In those counties with large numbers of foreignborn people, housing markets that accommodate particular racial/ ethnic groups are already established. For local housing policy planners and administrators, new concerns about the cost of housing and the quality and quantity of the housing stock will arise. The decennial census provides consistent and dependable data that helps us understand housing issues from the state to the very local level. Fo r tunately in this computer era, the data is easy to access and analyze.APPENDIX2.1A Using State and Local Area Census DataIn this section, we illustrate typical uses of census data both at the state and local level. State level data affords a broad picture of housing issues. However, looking at housing issues using state level data does little to influence housing policy at the local level. It is important therefore to understand both the geography of the census and the data that are released from the census for each level of geography. Fortunately, the Census Bu r eau website (http://www.census.gov) is easily accessed and with a little practice, easy to use. From the Census Bureau homepage, data for Census 2000 and the 1990 census are located by clicking on "Y our Gateway to Census 2000." Quick tables using "American Fact Finder" provide information on a variety of population, housing and economic conditions, or for more detailed tables, go directly to one of the summary files. These files are easily imported into an EXCEL or similar spreadsheet for further analysis and graphing. Compact disks containing census data along with a program to access these data can be purchased directly from the web site. Alternatively, the Census Bureau publishes a number of printed reports that can be purchased or are available at a designated census repository library. Census data is presented in four summary files. Summary File 1 and 2 (SF1, SF2) contain 100 percent data while SF3 and SF4 contain sample data. The decision as to which file to use is based on the data needed. For example, SF2 has more detailed data on race/ ethnicity than does SF1 or SF3 both SF1 and SF3 presents information down to the ZIP code level. Census geography is hierarchical in form from the largest to smallest area. That is from the United S tates, to a particular state, to the county level and then to successively smaller levels until the block level is reached. There are 10 levels in all4. Additionally, the Census web site offers simple mapping capabilities. The next segment focuses on creating a snapshot of current housing conditions in Hendry County and Broward County. F ollowing that, data from Census 2000 4 In order to develop a better understanding of the census see: Meyers, Dowell. 1992. Analysis with Local Census Data: Portraits of Change. San Diego, Academic Press, Inc. 19902000Change Population To tal15523218598420% White9793194328-4% Black407304819318% Hispanic1368532897140% Households To tal645178099626% Size 1 person203182836340% 2 persons220942712423% 3 persons101891206018% 4 persons6927782113% 5 persons2959345017% 6 persons1178131712% 7 +8528854%T able 2.7 Orlando: Selected Population Characteristics

PAGE 29

23 is compared to 1990 census data in order to evaluate change.2.2A Understanding Current ConditionsA variety of questions come to mind when we attempt to understand a locality's current housing conditions. These questions are typically related to household size, ownership, affordability, crowding and quality, as well as questions about race and ethnicity. Evaluating the same housing issues at successively smaller jurisdictions illustrates how a given area compares with or diverges from a parent area. Census geography creates divisions on a number of different levels. Following the state and the county level, the Census Bureau identifies a statistical area known as a census county division (CCD) and a minor civil division (MCD). The MCD is a r ecognized political division in many states however not in Florida. The CCD is included to balance the geographic divisions but has little practical use. A better choice for comparative analysis is to identify all of the census tracts that comprise the city, town or jurisdiction of interest. Another choice is to use the geographic level referred to by the Census Bureau as place." Incorporated cities are identified as places and the Census Bureau also designates areas with boundaries that residents r ecognize (i.e. a suburban area that is not part of a city) as a census-designated place (CDP). In the case of Hendry County the geographic divisions following the state and county are the Clewiston CCD and the LaBelle CCD. The Clewiston CCD includes the City of Clewiston, the H arlem CDP, and the remainder of the area designated as part of the Clewiston CCD. In Broward County, the MiramarPe mbroke Pines CCD includes the City of Miramar, the City of Pembroke Pines, and a number of recognizable named subdivisions designated as CDPs. H endry County is located south and w est of Lake Okeechobee. Even though the total population in rural Hendry County is relatively small, it is unique in that the number of foreign born grew by ov er 130 percent during the decade of the 1990s. The county seat is LaBelle and the City of Clewiston is home to Florida's sugar industry. T able 2.9. Selected Current Population Characteristics by Race/EthnicityBroward CountyMiramarCensusCensus T ractTract 1104.031105 T otal Population1,623,01872,7395,1128,028 % White58%22%24%21% % Black20%42%45%52% % Hispanic17%29%25%21% % Other5%7%6%7% % Elderly16%6%7%8% % Below Poverty Level12%8%8%5% Hendry CountyClewistonCensusCensus T ract 1Tract 2 T otal Population36210646065677506 % White43.88%46.05%46.37%33.29% % Black14.76%10.54%10.72%38.30% % Hispanic39.59%40.94%40.43%26.74% % Other1.76%2.46%2.48%1.67% % Elderly10.26%9.85%9.98%8.13% % Below Poverty Level24.00%19.00%19.00%27.00% T able 2.8 Orlando: Racial/Ethnic Housing Profile 2000 Occupied Units Average Size OwnerRenterHouseholdsFamilies White non-Hispanic22779254121.942.66 Black non-Hispanic5847112842.743.36 Hispanic324584022.723.23 Cuban5246752.383.02 Mexican1375742.913.52 Puerto Rican165245822.73.19 South American3309452.833.25

PAGE 30

24The State of Florida'sHousing 2003 Br ow ard County, located on Florida's southeast coast, was selected because it felt the impact of two significant population migrations during the decade of the 1990s. The first was the movement of people from Miami-Dade County to Br ow ard County following Hurricane Andrew's 1992 devastation of hundreds of housing units. The second is the recognition by immigrants that Broward County offers a good quality of life as more than 16 percent of all new immigrants selected Broward as their home. The next tables present Census 2000 data at the county level, the city level, and for one or more census tracts. The next two tables present population and housing unit information from both Hendry County and Broward County. These tables provide examples of two different geographic relationships. In the first case in Broward County, the parent element is the county followed by the city and then by the two census tracts that are wholly contained within the city. In the second case Hendry County is the parent element, however, since the City of Clewiston is completely contained in part of one census tract, the comparison is from county to census tracts to the city or from one census tract to another. The difference is due to the fact that counties and cities are political subdivisions with definite boarders while census tracts are based on population and have boundaries that can and do change over time. F or ease of presentation and discussion, the Broward County and H endry County tables are presented together. It is not our intention to draw any comparisons between the two counties, as they are vastly different in character and economic base. Rather, the comparisons are made between the largest geographic unit and subsequently smaller ones. Table 2.9 contains data about current population. The first thing to notice about Miramar is that is has a significantly higher Black population than does Broward County as a whole. Also, there are fewer elderly and fewer people below the poverty level. The two census tracts, 1103.4 and 1105, are both in the eastern part of Miramar and about half of the population in each tract is B lack. When the population of Hendry County and the City of Clewiston is considered, we observe that Clewiston closely mirrors the county in the proportion of both White and Hispanic persons. There are somewhat fewer B lacks in the city or in Census Tract 1; however, Census Tract 2 has over 38 percent. Another observation is the high poverty rate. Although the rate in Clewiston is lower than the county as a whole, the rate in Census Tract 2 is higher. T able 2.10 considers selected current housing information. In Broward County, there are almost as many multifamily housing units as there are singlefamily units. However, Miramar is over 80 percent single family. Although M iramar has a number of mobile homes there are none in either census tract. The figures for median owner occupied home v alue and median contract rent should be approached with caution. These T able 2.10 Selected Current Housing CharacteristicsBroward CountyMiramarCensusCensus T ractTract 1104.031105 T otal Housing Units741,04325,8981,6512,595 Single Family (att. + det.)360,76421,0623,6892402 Multi Family352,3494,31834193 Mobile Homes26,83451800 Boats1,096000 Median Value Own$102,800$112,600$96,600$95,200 Median Contract Rent$676$694$881$601 Hendry CountyClewistonCensusCensus T ract 1Tract 2 T otal Housing Units12,2942,4582,5132,556 Single Family (att. + det.)5,8511,4411,465925 Multi Family1,005534534136 Mobile Homes5,3164834931472 Boats12202123 Median Value Own$56,600$93,500$45,200$46,900 Median Contract Rent$380$382$322$321

PAGE 31

25 figures reflect housing costs in 1999 dollars. In Broward County, the housing market has been extremely strong during the period from 1999 until today. H ousing prices have risen consistently and in many areas homes are selling for almost 30 percent more than they did in 1999. Rents have risen in a similar though not as dramatic fashion. What we can learn from these figures is the r elationship between the cost of buying and the cost of renting. It is interesting that the median rental rate in Census T ract 1103.4 is higher than in either Census Tract 1105 or in the City of M iramar. This may be due to the fact that there are very few multi-family units in CT 1103.4 and rental rates reflect the cost of renting a single-family home. Although knowledge about certain current conditions is essential, it is the examination of change at a very local level that leads to new housing policy decisions. The following tables and subsequent discussion focus on how the changing population in Florida affects the need for housing. One of the important questions to ask about housing need is related to the contribution of minorities to total household growth and to ownership growth in the area.2.3A Examining ChangeB efore a comparison between 1990 and 2000 census data is made, it is important to understand the changes in racial/ethnic categories between the two data sets. In SF1 and SF2 of the 1990 census, the racial categories consist of White, Black, American Indian, Asian and Other. Hispanics are counted separately and may be of any race. Using the categories of White, Black and H ispanic will lead to double counting as Hispanics are counted once as White or Black and again as Hispanic. In the 2000 census SF2, the same racial categories exist but in it is also possible to identify White, non-Hispanic; Black, T able 2.11 Miramar, Census Tract 1105: Changes in Housing19902000Change Housing Units Owner Occupied220122160.68% Renter Occupied2642660.76% V acant122113-7% Housing Costs Median Value$78,500$95,20021% Percent of County Average85.51%92.61%8% Median Contract Rent$629$601-4% Percent of County Average126.56%88.91%-30% Median Gross Rent as a33.50%22.50%-33% percentage of Household income Persons Per Room .05-123232145-8% 1.01-2131315140% 2 or more1122100% Percent Overcrowded5.76%13.58%136% 19902000Change T otal Population6888802816.55% White, non-Hispanic49051646-66.44% Black, non-Hispanic7374189468.39% Hispanic1078166354.27% Other168530215.48%T able 2.12 Miramar, Census Tract 1105: Population Change by Race/Ethnicity

PAGE 32

26The State of Florida'sHousing 2003 non-Hispanic; and Hispanic who may be of any race. Using 1990 data, it is possible to create equivalent categories by backing the White Hispanics out of the White category and the Black H ispanics out of the Black category in the 1990 data set. Ultimately, the questions we ask about housing or the housing problems we need to address determine the type of comparisons made. Data on housing in CT 1105 is presented in Table 2.11. At first glance, it seems that the housing conditions are somewhat stable. The level of owner and renter occupied housing is the same in 2000 as it was in 1990 and the number of vacant houses has declined. The median value of a housing unit in 2000 is closer to the median value in the county than it was in 1990 and the relative cost of renting has declined. However, part of the explanation for the decline in median gross rent as a percentage of household income is explained in the next part of the table when persons per room is considered. The number of persons per room has increased dramatically during the decade. More people are living in crowded conditions and it is likely that there are more people in each household contributing to the rent. Racial/ethnic patterns are summarized in Table 2.12. The percentage of White residents has declined and the number of Black, nonH ispanic residents has increased dramatically from 737 to 4189 persons. The number of Hispanic residents also increased. In 1990, White householders occupied 67 percent of the owneroccupied housing units and only 9.5 percent by Black householders. By 2000 of the owner occupied units, 39 percent were occupied by a White householder and 52 percent by a Black householder. Hispanic ownership rates in both periods are above 85 percent. Ho wever the Hispanic calculation includes both Black and White Hispanics and are already counted in the calculations for ownership rates for the B lack and White category. Most of the housing stock in this census tract was constructed before 1980. There were 24 new housing units built in 1990 and none since. Housing policy concerns in this neighborhood probably focus on the aging housing stock and the need for r ehabilitation, and the issue of ov ercrowded dwellings. The ability to evaluate change in housing consumption patterns helps identify these concerns.

PAGE 33

27 3. Florida's Housing SupplyD ouglas White F lorida Data Clearinghouse S himberg Center U niversity of Florida Ma rc T. Smith, Ph.D. S himberg Center U niversity of Florida F lorida's housing stock includes single-family units, multifamily units, and manufactured units. Although all three types of housing units are r epresented, the housing inventory is dominated by the single-family home. A bout 58 percent of the state's single family housing stock is located in six major metropolitan areas: Fort Lauderdale, Jacksonville, Miami, Orlando, Tampa-St. Petersburg, and W est Palm Beach-Boca Raton. The Fort Lauderdale and Miami MSAs, because of their density, also have the distinction of having the most multifamily housing of any area in the state. Although not a type of structure, condominium housing is an important housing category in some areas of the state. Broward, MiamiD ade, and Palm Beach Counties alone have 58 percent of the state's condominiums. Significant concentrations of condominiums are also found in Collier, Lee, Pinellas, and S arasota Counties. Clearly, condominiums tend to be a coastal phenomenon. By contrast, mobile or manufactured housing is largely a rural, inland phenomenon.3.1 Data DescriptionTo understand and analyze Florida's stock of housing, tax assessment records from the 67 county property appraisers are examined. From all 67 counties, the S himberg Center obtains data on the four major categories of residentially coded parcels. This results in a database that contains information on residential parcels of land and most residential structures in Florida, including: parcel identification; land use code (vacant residential, single-family, condominium, etc.); total assessed value; assessed land value; year in which structure was built; square footage of the structure; parcel size; date and price of the two most recent sales; ad valorem tax jurisdiction; homestead exemption; and location of the property by section, township, and range. The database contains most but not all residential structures, excluding (1) residential structures located on land that is not residentially coded, such as residential structures located on land that has an agriculture coding or residential structures that have a commercial coding (2) manufactured housing not classified as real property (this problem is discussed in more detail later in the report) and (3) structures that are not one of the four major residential land use categories examined. The data, unless otherwise noted, are for roll year 2002, the last complete year for which data are available. U se of the individual county property appraiser data allows us to reasonably compare housing characteristics in the counties with each other. However, there are gaps and limitations in these Department of Re venue (DOR) data sets. Gaps occur because in some counties, certain fields of data are not included in the records or are missing for specific property types. For example, in many counties the year built information or square footage is missing for condominiums, and some counties do not report sales prices from more than five years ago. In a few cases only one year of sales data is reported. Limitations on the data can occur for two reasons. First, only the two most recent sales prices and year of those sales are reported. Any time a parcel sells, the oldest of the two sales is lost. Therefore when examining the county data, there are two potential explanations for the increasing

PAGE 34

28The State of Florida'sHousing 2003 frequency of sales over time. The first is that sales really have increased over time, and the second is that this increased frequency is just a statistical anomaly due to properties selling multiple times, eliminating the older records. A second limitation in the data is that definitions vary somewhat across counties; an example of this is square footage. Property appraisers calculate and use more than one measurement of square footage in their appraisal process. Thus, this characteristic can vary across county and possibly over time within the county. Another reason square footage can vary is the presence of multiple buildings on a parcel, which show up in the value for square footage field. In the past, Shimberg did not report square footage values that appeared to vary from the majority of the counties. However, this year, in the interest of providing more information, we are reporting these v alues.1 Another new feature to this year's report is the reporting of real values (in 2002 dollars) for sale prices on singlefamily homes, manufactured housing, and condominiums.2Another problem that has to be addressed when creating the database is that the data must be cleaned. For example, any sales that are determined to be a "non-arms-length" transaction (by the DOR transaction code) are deleted. A dditionally, any observations with obvious mispricing (due to data entry or other error) or which are not considered a sale for purposes of the report are deleted. For example, the older of two r ecent sale prices for a newly constructed home is usually the sale of the lot; a price not comparable to the sale price after the home has been constructed. Finally, data entry problems exist that have required the development of screening rules to eliminate information that falls outside reasonable boundaries. D espite these problems, the property appraiser data provides information on F lorida's housing stock that is not otherwise available. For example, decennial Census data because of delays due to its release and the fact that it is only conducted once a decade. The Census is also subject to inaccuracies in evaluating housing unit characteristics because it relies on the evaluation by the occupants for estimates of numerous v ariables such as property value and age. O ther sources, while current and v aluable, are subject to limitations of geographic coverage or amount of information available.3The following section describes the existing single-family housing stock in Fl orida. Subsequent sections provide detailed information on the condominium market and the multifamily housing market. Although manufactured housing accounts for a significant portion of residential housing units in many rural counties, we are unable to describe and discuss Florida's manufactured housing stock because comprehensive, accurate data are not available from the property appraiser data 1 In an attempt to make the data as similar as possible, square footage values are only calculated and reported for parcels with a single building.2 The real value has adjusted the sales price to reflect inflation. Inflation reduces the purchasing power, so a dollar in 1990 is worth more than a dollar in 2002. Therefore the 1990 real sales price in 2002 dollars expresses what the sale price would have been in 2002.3 In the National Association of Realtors (NAR) H ome Sales the median sale price of existing single-family homes, condos, and co-ops sold in each quarter are reported for the nine largest metropolitan areas in Florida. In addition, the Florida Association of Realtors (FAR) produces the F lorida Home Sales Report that contains information on monthly sales volume and median sale prices for the 20 major metropolitan areas. While quite valuable, the NAR and FAR reports do not contain information on characteristics other than sale price and volume, and in addition are based only on MLS sales. Moreover, numerous counties are excluded.4 The decennial US Census counts all manufactured housing, and therefore reports a drastically different number of total housing units for some of the rural counties than the corresponding county property appraiser. This difference is almost one hundred percent due to the difference in reported manufactured housing.

PAGE 35

29 at our disposal. Accurate data on manufactured housing is difficult to obtain for several reasons. First, a manufactured home is classified as real property if the owner owns both the home and the lot. It is these homes that are included in the property appraiser files. Other manufactured housing, perhaps the larger share, is located on r ented sites and carry a tag from the D ivision of Motor Vehicles.4 Fu rther, even combining these sources results in data that are not consistent from year to y ear. In addition to reporting problems, possible causes of inconsistencies include units not counted because of confusion about their status, failure to renew a tag, units placed on land and not reported to the appraiser, or uncertainty about the location of the unit (i.e. in a city or in the unincorporated portion of a county).3.2 Single-Family HousingSu mmary data by county, with aggregations to metropolitan and state totals, are included in T able 3.1 (if the data were not available on the county property appraiser files for a county, a "2)" is placed on the exhibit). The single-family housing stock of F lorida totals almost 3.9 million units and the total assessed value of these units is $451.8 billion. Almost seventy-eight percent of these units are occupied by their owner; the remaining units are r enter-occupied. The mean age of housing units in the state is 26 years, and the average size is 1,941 square feet. The number of single-family sales in 2001 totaled approximately 281,480, which is equal to approximately 7.2 percent of the total single-family housing stock in this state.5 The median price of a 2001 sale was $130,000. This is lower than both the 2001 new median house price in the U.S. of $187,500 and the 2001 existing house price of $147,800.6As shown in Figure 3.1, Florida's housing is geographically concentrated. The state's 21 metropolitan areas (MSAs) are divided into "major" metropolitan areas (6 MSAs) and "other" metropolitan areas (15 MSAs). The major MSAs include Ft. Lauderdale, Miami, J acksonville, Orlando, West Palm BeachBoca Raton, and Tampa-St. PetersburgClearwater. A total of fifteen counties are in major MSAs. The 15 other MSAs include twenty counties. A total of 35 of Florida's 67 counties are therefore found in metropolitan areas, with the remaining 32 being non-metropolitan.7These remaining 32 counties are further categorized, as shown in the table, into four regional groups: Northwest, No r theast, Central, and South, according to categories used by the University of F lorida's Bureau of Economic and Business Research. The totals and means for the state reported above allow for the determination of the standing of counties and metropolitan areas relative to the state, and for comparisons across counties and metropolitan areas. The six major MSAs contain approximately 2.3 million single-family units and these units comprise about 58 percent of the total housing stock in the state. Over onequarter of the major MSA total, comprising almost 17 percent of the state, is found in the Tampa-St. P etersburg-Clearwater MSA (which we 5 The number of sales depends on what classes of transactions are regarded as qualified sales. For example, the total quoted here includes only sales that were arms-length transactions.6 The sources for these national prices are: new single family U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Construction/Housing S ales Survey; existing single family National Association of Realtors, Existing Home Sales Survey.7 M ultiple county MSAs are as follows: Daytona Beach MSA includes Flagler and Volusia Counties. Ft. Pierce-Port S t. Lucie MSA includes Martin and St. Lucie Counties. Jacksonville MSA includes Clay, Duval, Nassau and St. J ohns Counties. Orlando MSA includes Lake, Orange, Osceola and Seminole Counties. Pensacola MSA includes Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties. Sarasota-Bradenton MSA includes Manatee and Sarasota Counties. Tallahassee MSA includes Gadsden and Leon Counties. Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater MSA includes Hernando, H illsborough, Pasco and Pinellas Counties.

PAGE 36

30The State of Florida'sHousing 2003 Figure 3.1 Percentage of State's Single-Family Housing Stock

PAGE 37

31 Figure 3.2 Median 2001 Sales Price Single-Family Home

PAGE 38

32The State of Florida's Housing, 2003 T able 3.1 Single-Family Housing Stock (See Section 3.1 & 3.2 regarding data limitations)T otal % of% OwnerAssessed% of T otal Units StateOccupiedValue($mils)State Florida3,889,178100.077.5451,840100.0 Ft. Lauderdale MSA Broward County350,0899.080.948,19910.7 Jacksonville MSA Clay County38,8841.084.43,7560.8 Duval County211,0765.480.419,4644.3 Nassau County14,0930.477.71,8320.4 St. Johns County37,7901.079.86,4211.4 MSA total301,8437.880.731,4737.0 Miami MSA Miami-Dade County320,1128.277.643,9369.7 Orlando MSA Lake County62,2301.677.95,9701.3 Orange County219,6705.677.725,7865.7 Osceola County51,8571.364.65,1321.1 Seminole County105,4482.783.112,4622.8 MSA total439,20511.377.549,35110.9 T ampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater MSA Hernando County46,1011.279.23,6560.8 Hillsborough County258,3416.682.325,8025.7 Pasco County106,3532.779.38,4431.9 Pinellas County240,0396.281.025,2345.6 MSA total650,83416.781.163,13514.0 W est Palm Beach-Boca Raton MSA Palm Beach County199,4625.179.539,1728.7 Regional subtotal2,261,54558.179.7275,26660.9 Daytona Beach MSA Flagler County21,6320.675.42,3470.5 Volusa County133,4243.478.911,7882.6 MSA total155,0564.078.414,1343.1 Ft. Myers-Cape Coral MSA Lee County130,6813.471.219,0274.2 Ft. Pierce-Port St. Lucie MSA Martin County39,2881.076.07,6661.7 St. Lucia County62,3911.674.85,1011.1 MSA total101,6792.675.312,7672.8 Ft. Walton Beach MSA Oskaloosa County52,8811.471.65,3321.2 Gainesville MSA Alachua County47,9101.279.04,2190.9 Lakeland-Winter Haven MSA Polk County119,7173.173.88,9942.0 Melbourne-Titusville-Palm Bay MSA Brevard County148,4113.880.913,3282.9 Naples MSA Collier County58,4501.568.816,2923.6 Ocala MSA Marion County70,9331.877.45,1841.1

PAGE 39

33 T otal JustNew Units Value% ofAverageRelativeAverageConstructed% ofNumber ofMedian 2001 ($mils)StateAgeAge Index Size in 2001State2001 Sales Sale Price519,470100.0261.001,91480,034100.0281,480130,000 56,79610.9311.191,9272)2)34,598165,000 4,0660.8180.692,0421,5852.03,477124,000 22,5814.3321.231,7873,7574.713,415117,000 2,2190.4210.812,0376170.8874163,250 7,5351.5150.582,2831,9212.43,482177,250 36,4017.0281.081,8947,8809.821,248127,300 53,75210.3331.271,8822,3623.019,335158,000 6,1781.2220.851,5383,7144.66,051121,000 28,4535.5230.881,9376,9398.721,237134,000 5,3721.0150.581,8973,2494.15,808121,500 13,8602.7220.852,1402,2632.88,582141,000 53,86210.4210.811,92516,16520.241,678131,000 3,9840.8170.652,2771,1031.42,94285,000 30,3985.9230.881,8712)2)14,784125,000 9,4421.8220.851,7443,5914.510,424102,000 30,6725.9351.351,6951,8192.313,870124,750 74,49614.3271.041,8136,5138.142,020117,000 45,7878.8271.042,2363,8864.914,449171,900 321,09461.8271.041,91032,92041.1173,328138,000 2,5420.5130.502,1351,5181.91,761112,100 13,1782.5261.001,5313,1013.92)2) 15,7203.0240.921,6144,6195.81,761112,100 21,4374.1200.772,8475,6447.112,142137,243 8,6471.7170.651,9392)2)3,289163,000 5,4021.0210.811,5651,8402.34,63894,000 14,0502.7190.731,7121,8402)7,927117,000 5,5951.1230.881,9461,0941.43,892110,000 4,7130.9240.921,8949661.23,386112,900 10,0571.9301.152,2963,5764.58,37797,500 15,0102.9230.881,6173,6844.610,546103,400 19,9343.8160.621,9283,7004.65,223223,800 5,6451.1210.811,5442,7453.45,16591,858

PAGE 40

34The State of Florida's Housing, 2003 T able 3.1 Single-Family Housing Stock (continued) T otal % of% OwnerAssessed% of T otal Units StateOccupiedValue($mils)StatePanama City MSA Bay County45,4991.267.13,7080.8 Pensacola MSA Escambia County85,7372.275.05,7601.3 Santa Rosa County37,6051.078.33,7760.8 MSA total123,3423.276.09,5362.1 Punta Gorda MSA Charlotte County54,7021.472.95,7211.3 Sarasota-Bradenton MSA Manatee County63,4191.677.58,4211.9 Sarasota County105,3292.775.216,0773.6 MSA total168,7484.376.124,4985.4 T allahassee MSA Gadsden County9,1930.276.04540.1 Leon County61,3921.675.16,0671.3 MSA total70,5851.875.26,5221.4 Ve ro Beach Indian River County35,5120.973.05,4181.2 Regional subtotal 1,384,10635.675.3154,68134.2 Northwest nonmetropolitan area Calhoun County2,4720.174.4980.0 Franklin County5,3910.144.07360.2 Gulf County5,1110.155.25220.1 Holmes County3,2040.175.21360.0 Jackson County9,7330.372.64610.1 Jefferson County1,9880.172.0930.0 Liberty County1,2080.066.6450.0 Macula County4,7770.170.33370.1 W alton County13,7320.455.32,1720.5 W ashington County4,0380.171.61840.0 NMA total51,6541.363.14,7841.1 Northeast nonmetropolitan area Baker County3,0320.184.71810.0 Bradford County5,0430.175.52870.1 Columbia County10,6400.378.26570.1 Dixie County2,4750.161.61030.0 Gilchrist County1,7760.074.41000.0 Hamilton County1,9030.070.8800.0 Lafayette County8120.075.5370.0 Levy County6,2040.272.63790.1 Madison County2,9970.170.71280.0 Suwannee County5,0870.174.82700.1 T aylor County4,7340.165.12270.1 Union County1,1100.078.6530.0 NMA total45,8131.274.02,5020.6 Central nonmetropolitan area Citrus County41,6601.179.53,0700.7 Putnam County15,4290.472.69270.2 Sumter County16,2510.477.31,3210.3 NMA total73,3401.977.65,3181.2 South nonmetropolitan area De Soto County5,0710.171.03040.1 Glades County1,5420.056.6910.0 Hardee County3,8390.176.51760.0 Hendry County4,7330.172.92960.1 Highlands County27,8220.771.51,6910.4 Monroe County23,3170.654.26,3131.4 Okeechobee County6,3960.269.94210.1 NMA total72,7201.965.89,2912.1 Regional subtotal243,5276.370.321,8944.8 1) Fewer than 25 parcels. 2) Data not available.

PAGE 41

35 T otal JustNew Units Value% ofAverageRelativeAverageConstructed% ofNumber ofMedian 2001 ($mils)StateAgeAge Index Size in 2001State2001 Sales Sale Price3,8800.7250.961,7967981.02,899107,000 6,5201.3311.191,7771,4951.94,20798,100 4,0010.8180.692,0091,3861.72,705114,900 10,5212.0271.041,8472,8813.66,912105,000 6,4251.2200.772,3281,3401.73,709112,500 9,6801.9250.962,3472,8463.66,002149,000 18,6413.6250.961,7173,2734.18,903142,900 28,3225.5250.961,9556,1197.614,905145,000 4870.1321.231,592760.122881,000 6,4881.2240.921,8551,1181.44,895114,900 6,9741.3250.961,8211,1941.55,123113,500 6,0511.2220.851,9671,1751.52,790115,000 174,33433.6230.881,94541,37551.794,757119,900 1010.0321.231,577250.06962,500 7800.2301.151,6011190.1255145,500 6150.1220.851,6101260.2265131,500 1440.0331.271,500320.010547,500 5200.1331.271,6591140.127971,000 1050.0291.121,673270.06774,500 480.0321.232)120.0201) 3830.1200.771,5961620.2264118,350 2,3100.4190.731,9057210.9925157,200 1940.0250.961,551560.110560,000 5,2011.0261.002)1,3941.72,354110,000 2160.0281.081,650940.116883,350 3060.1331.271,619590.111466,500 7180.1291.121,7922510.349875,914 1120.0291.122)160.07355,000 1050.0250.961,644480.15073,700 870.0351.351,579190.02858,250 420.0311.191,563170.02661,250 4290.1291.121,6491170.120669,950 1350.0250.961,527260.04560,000 3130.1321.231,590900.118375,000 2330.0271.041,556630.113562,600 600.0271.041,703230.02673,450 2,7570.5291.122)8231.01,55273,000 3,3150.6190.732,2161,1181.42,40574,500 1,0270.2331.271,9581680.252670,500 1,4240.3150.581,7101,6412.12,243135,400 5,7671.1210.812,0512,9273.75,174102,000 3270.1301.151,686600.116481,000 920.0271.041,540260.05868,000 1830.0331.271,544230.013559,500 3110.1261.001,602410.120868,700 1,7180.3220.851,7182)2)1,72767,000 7,2461.4271.041,5513140.41,760280,000 4420.1250.961,5961310.226375,000 10,3182.0250.961,6295952)4,315115,000 24,0424.6250.961,7825,7397.213,39599,000

PAGE 42

36The State of Florida'sHousing 2003 will refer to as Tampa Bay). The Orlando MSA has 11 percent of the state's singlefamily stock, the Ft. Lauderdale MSA about 9 percent, and the Miami MSA 8.2 percent. Of single county MSAs, M iami and Ft. Lauderdale have the largest numbers of single-family housing units in the state. Together, these two counties contain over 17 percent of the state's single-family units. Adding Palm Beach County results in almost 23 percent of the state's single-family stock being located in the these three southeast F lorida counties. The 15 other MSAs contain 35.6 percent of the state's single-family housing stock, while the 32 nonmetropolitan counties contain only 6.3 percent. The non-metropolitan counties show the extremes of population densities in the state. For example, Lafayette County has fewer than 1,000 single-family units. Other counties with less than 3,000 units include Calhoun, D ixie, Gilchrist, Glades, Hamilton, J efferson, Liberty, Madison, and Union Counties. These 11 counties combined have only about one-half of one percent of the total single-family housing units in the state. B ased on property appraiser data, a total of 80,034 single-family units were constructed in the state in 2001.8 These units increased the size of the housing stock in the state by about 2 percent. Ev en excluding Broward and H illsborough County, slightly more than 41 percent of the new units were constructed in the six large metropolitan areas, with over 20 percent in the O rlando MSA and approximately 8 percent in the Tampa Bay MSA even while excluding Hillsborough County. Among counties in the smaller MSAs, Br evard, Collier, Lee, Polk, and Sarasota all had 4.1 percent or more of the state's new construction. Lee County, with 5,644 new units, exceeded the level of new construction in all of the metropolitan counties in the state except Orange. The construction numbers show growth in population in several of the smaller MSAs. The total assessed value (the property appraiser's estimate of the value of a home for the calculation of property taxes) of single-family units in the state shows a similar pattern. The total assessed value of single-family units in the state is approximately $451.8 billion and almost 61 percent of that total is found in the major MSAs. The three southeast F lorida countiesMiami-Dade, Br o ward, and Palm Beachhave 29 percent of the total assessed value. The average assessed value of a single-family housing unit in Florida is about $116,000. Average assessed values range from over $279,000 in Collier County (Naples MSA) to about $49,000 in G adsden County (Tallahassee MSA) among metropolitan counties and from a high of over $271,000 in Monroe County to a low of about $37,000 in Liberty County among nonmetropolitan counties. A relative age index is constructed to compare the average age of housing units in a county or MSA to the state total. A problem with the age variable is that the age of a unit is changed if significant remodeling and renovations have been completed on a unit to reflect the date of those improvements. However, assuming that improvements to a house increase the longevity of the unit, then the improvements may represent a reasonable means to convey the age of the stock. The age variable is also not consistently recorded in all counties. Counties or MSAs with an older housing stock than Florida's average have a relative age index greater than one. Areas with a relatively young stock have an index less than one. The housing stock in the major MSAs is slightly older than the state average, as the relative age index is 1.04 and the average age is 27 years (rounded) 8 This value excludes new construction in Broward County, Highlands County, Hillsborough County, and Martin County where accurate construction numbers were unavailable.

PAGE 43

37 as compared to the state's 26 year average. F or the other MSAs, the index is 0.88 with an average age of 23 years, and the non-MSA counties had an age index of 0.96 with an average age of 25 years. Comparisons at these high levels of aggregation, however, mask significant differences in individual MSAs and counties. For example, with a relative age index of 0.50, Flagler County in the Daytona Beach MSA has the newest housing stock in Florida. This reflects a single-family housing stock in Flagler with an average age of 13 years. Other counties with relative age indexes of 0.75 or below include Clay, St. Johns, Osceola, and Hernando Counties among major MSA counties; Collier, Martin, and S anta Rosa Counties among the other MSAs; and Citrus, Sumter, and Walton Counties in the non-metropolitan category. Many of the counties with newer housing stocks are coastal counties that have experienced rapid growth; others are suburban counties in growing metropolitan areas. Citrus and Sumter Counties are experiencing growth related to major development targeted to retirement populations S ingle-family housing stocks that are older than the state average are generally found in large urban counties or in the ru ral, interior counties with smaller populations. The oldest single-family stock is in Hamilton and Pinellas County, with a relative age index of 1.384 and a mean age of 35 years. Other nonmetropolitan counties with a relative age index of 1.25 or greater include Bradford, Ha r dee, Holmes, Jackson, and Putnam. Among the metropolitan counties, the oldest housing stock is found in Pinellas County with an average age of 35 years. M iami-Dade (33 years), Duval (32 years), Gadsden (32 years), Polk (30 y ears), and Escambia (31 years) also have relatively old housing stocks. Counties with the largest number of sales transactions9 in 2001 are, as expected, the largest counties in population. Approximately 62 percent of the single-family transactions in the state in 2001 were in the major MSA counties, with 14.9 percent in the Tampa B ay MSA and 14.8 percent in the O rlando MSA. Among individual counties Broward was the highest with 12.3 percent of the state total while O range had 7.5 percent and Miami-Dade had 6.8 percent of Florida's 2001 transactions. Over 24 percent of transactions in 2001 were in the three southeast Florida counties--Miami-Dade, Br o ward, and Palm Beach. Over 33 percent of all sales in 2001 we re in other MSA counties, while the r emaining 5 percent were in the nonmetropolitan counties. Lee County had 4.3 percent of the state's transactions in 2001. Brevard had 3.8 percent and, S arasota County had 3.1 percent. The turnover rate measures the percentage of total units sold in each area. U nits sold as a percentage of total units in the large MSAs were 7.7 percent. The sales in other MSAs equaled 6.9 percent of total units; in the non-MSA counties they were 5.5 percent. Turnover of singlefamily housing units is clearly higher in MSAs, than in non-MSA counties. Counties with fewer than 100 transactions were small, rural counties including Liberty, Lafayette, Union, H amilton, Madison, Gilchrist, Glades, Je fferson, Calhoun, Dixie, Holmes, W ashington, Bradford, Taylor, Hardee, De Soto, Baker, and Suwannee. The highest single-family median sales prices in 2001 were in Monroe ($280,000), Collier ($223,800), St. Johns ($177,250), and Palm Beach ($171,900) Counties. Other counties with median sales prices above $130,000 include Br o ward, Nassau, Martin, MiamiDade, W alton, Manatee, Franklin, Sarasota, S eminole, Lee, Sumter, Orange, and G ulf. All the counties with high median prices are coastal counties. Counties with 9 No sales data for single-family, condominium, or multi-family housing units are available for Volusia County in 2001. All following reported sales data is reported as if Volusia County had zero sales.

PAGE 44

38The State of Florida's Housing, 2003 Florida1,307,701100.048.5142,491100.0152,184 Ft. Lauderdale MSA Broward County 208,87816.056.114,98910.516,673 Jacksonville MSA Clay County1,0200.162.870076 Duval County7,8870.659.27520.5902 Nassau County2,7670.217.47060.5731 St. Johns County8,7930.728.81,3460.91,445 MSA total20,4671.640.62,8732.03,154 Miami MSA Miami-Dade County277,95421.353.130,39321.332,391 Orlando MSA Lake County2,7280.255.62290.2233 Orange County32,6362.531.34,2883.04,381 Osceola County3,6890.39.83940.3395 Seminole County8,2050.659.34490.3482 MSA total47,2583.635.95,3603.85,491 T ampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater MSA Hernando County7820.153.136 036 Hillsborough County22,1061.757.91,4791.01,627 Pasco County10,8660.853.55230.4550 Pinellas County89,9976.953.07,6765.48,477 MSA total123,7519.553.99,7146.810,691 W est Palm Beach-Boca Raton MSA Palm Beach County270,21420.756.528,89520.330,689 Regional subtotal 948,52272.553.792,22364.799,089 Daytona Beach MSA Flagler County1,7360.135.02030.1210 Volusia County22,9091.832.22,4471.72,598 MSA total24,6451.932.42,6501.92,809 Ft. Myers-Cape Coral MSA Lee County52,8614.033.57,8275.58,130 Ft. Pierce-Port St. Lucie MSA Martin County13,2131.049.91,0250.71,062 St. Lucie County11,8870.937.51,1750.81,241 MSA total25,1001.944.02,1991.52,302 Ft. Walton Beach MSA Okaloosa County9,6900.710.01,6851.21,708 Gainesville MSA Alachua County3,1810.247.71660.1175 Lakeland-Winter Haven MSA Polk County6,7340.537.22940.2296 Melbourne-Titusville-Palm Bay MSA Brevard County25,1771.9441,9551.42,089 Naples MSA Collier County75,6345.829.314,2801015,087T otalTotal Just % of% OwnerAssessed% of Value T otal Units StateOccupiedValue($mils)State ($mils)T able 3.2 Condominium Stock (See Section 3.1 & 3.3 regarding data limitations)

PAGE 45

39 100.02)15,611100.0127,088100.0106,000 11.02)2)2)18,71214.771,000 0.11960.01040.166,750 0.62)2)2)3920.3117,200 0.519990.61960.2244,750 0.92)2)2)1,0480.8147,000 2.12)1050.71,7401.4136,000 21.32)2)2)32,71125.7116,000 0.219160.12240.261,150 2.92)2)2)2,3581.969,000 0.3132611.73750.3100,000 0.3221020.78980.773,500 3.62)3792.43,8553.072,900 01 51 3 0.1720.166,750 1.1172)2)2,1631.781,000 0.42140.09770.851,900 5.6241921.27,9316.275,000 7.0232091.311,1438.873,900 20.2186,53641.925,77720.3127,837 65.12)7,22946.393,93873.999,000 0.117810.52330.2144,000 1.72)2)2)2)2)2) 1.82)810.52330.2144,000 5.3162,20714.15,9174.7135,000 0.7232)2)1,2241.070,000 0.827540.31,1540.9100,500 1.525540.32,3781.976,000 1.12)2)2)9470.7214,900 0.117003780.371,500 0.22)2)2)5180.455,000 1.4214723.02,2001.785,000 9.9143,81224.47,1965.7155,000New UnitsMedian % ofAverageConstructed% ofNumber of% of 2001 StateAge in 2001State2001 SalesState Sale Price

PAGE 46

40The State of Florida's Housing, 2003 T otalTotal Just % of% OwnerAssessed% of Value T otal Units StateOccupiedValue($mils)State ($mils) T able 3.2 Condominium Stock (continued)Ocala MSA Marion County5,9490.566.83200.2328 Panama City MSA Bay County10,8870.89.41,2080.81,225 Pensacola MSA Escambia County4,5110.323.55620.4576 Santa Rosa County1,3150.1202150.2217 MSA total5,8260.422.77770.5793 Punta Gorda MSA Charlotte County11,2830.931.81,3150.91,388 Sarasota-Bradenton MSA Manatee County23,6321.850.42,3951.72,577 Sarasota County44,7903.441.87,9425.68,704 MSA total68,4225.244.710,3377.311,281 T allahassee MSA Leon County7290.124.731032 Ve ro Beach Indian River County11,8830.941.91,7081.21,833 Regional subtotal 338,00125.835.746,75232.849,474 Northwest nonmetropolitan area Franklin County3708.1505 Gulf County3705.4707 Wakulla County97017.5909 Walton County8,4230.67.41,5971.11,610 NMA Total8,5940.77.51,6181.11,631 Northeast nonmetropolitan area Bradford County18088.9101 Columbia County46071.7303 Levy County1980316016 Taylor County2304.3202 NMA Total285019.622023 Central nonmetropolitan area Citrus County1,4710.142.7760.179 Putnam County141034.8909 Sumter County106042.5404 NMA Total1,7180.142890.192 South nonmetropolitan area De Soto County554042.835036 Glades County32025202 Hardee County218033.5808 Hendry County143021.7809 Highlands County1,1440.14250050 Monroe County8,3320.6161,6771.21,763 Okeechobee County158025.3606 NMA Total10,5810.820.91,7871.31,874 Regional subtotal 21,1781.617.13,5162.53,621 1) Fewer than 25 parcels. 2) Data not available.

PAGE 47

41 New UnitsMedian % ofAverageConstructed% ofNumber of% of 2001 StateAge in 2001State2001 SalesState Sale Price 0.217110.14450.458,000 0.82)2)2)1,1610.9127,600 0.4182801.85920.5174,900 0.1132)2)440.074,500 0.5172801.86360.5160,550 0.9181460.91,1460.983,000 1.7212261.42,3091.8104,900 5.7228435.44,0063.2134,900 7.4211,0696.86,3155.0122,500 02 87 0.01190.168,500 1.2202031.31,1650.9116,000 32.52)8,34253.430,75424.2125,500 0310 0.130.01) 0160 0.020.01) 02 )2 )2 )3 1 0.0128,060 1.12)2)2)1,0870.9215,000 1.12)100.11,1230.9211,500 02)2)2 )0 0.00 0230 0.050.01) 01118 0.160.01) 02)2)2 )0 0.00 02)18 0.1110.01) 0.12000.01140.164,500 0190 0.0220.01) 02)2)2 )8 0.01) 0.12)00.01440.164,250 02 )2 )2 )9 8 0.180,900 0200 0.030.01) 0812 0.1100.01) 0150 0.080.01) 02 12 )2 ) 1270.152,000 1.22)2)2)8500.7179,250 0250 0.0220.01) 1.22)120.11,1180.9145,000 2.42)400.32,3961.9171,315

PAGE 48

42The State of Florida'sHousing 2003 Figure 3.3 Percentage of State's Condominium Stocklow median prices include a number with median prices below $60,000 in 2001: Hardee ($59,500), Hamilton ($58,250), Dixie ($55,000), and (Holmes ($47,500). As shown in Figure 3.2, the sales price data further illustrate the differences between urban and rural counties and between coastal and non-coastal counties. The highest mean prices in 2001 are in coastal counties, several of which are not major urban counties (for example, Collier). At the other extreme, counties with the lowest mean house prices are generally rural, slow growing, and located in the interior of the state.3.3 CondominiumsThe role of condominiums in providing housing in a county is another indicator of the differences in housing stock across counties. Table 3.2 contains summary information on the state's stock of condominiums. As expected, condominiums are an important source of housing in coastal counties where a number of retirees live, but not in interior counties. Summing across counties indicates that there were 1,307,701 condominium-housing units in the state in 2002. 48.5 percent of these units are owner-occupied, much less than the 77.5 percent owner-occupied percentage found in the single-family stock. A total of 757,046 units, or 58 percent of condominium units in the state, are located in three southeast F lorida counties: Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach. Figure 3.3 shows the geographical distribution of condominiums across the state. In total, the non-MSA counties have less than 2.0 percent of the total condominiums in the state, and almost 80 percent of these are found in two counties: Monroe and W alton. 10 D ata on the average size (square footage) of the condominium stock is not reported because of variations in reported data.

PAGE 49

43 Figure 3.4 Median 2001 Sales Price for CondominiumsO ther coastal metropolitan counties have a much smaller stock of condominium units than the three southeast counties, but condominiums still play a major role in the provision of housing in those counties. For example, Collier County's 75,634 condominium units far exceed the 58,450 single-family housing units in the county. Condominium units also exceed singlefamily units in Palm Beach County. Other counties with large numbers of condominiums are Lee, Manatee, P inellas, Orange and Sarasota. D iscussion of the characteristics of condominiums in the state is limited by the lack of data in a number of the data fields in some counties. These fields include year built, age, and price. The following description is based on the available data. We do not report a mean age for condominium units due to limited data for the individual counties. However, we can compare average age in 36 of Florida's counties, and in 30 of the 36, mean age for condominiums is less than or equal to the mean age for single-family units. S ome of the newest condominium stocks are located in non-metropolitan counties including Franklin, with a mean age of 3 y ears. Among the major metropolitan counties, Pinellas has the highest mean age of 24 years for condominium units. The number of condominium sales in the state totaled 127,088 units in 2001. Of these over 25 percent occurred in Miami-Dade County, 20 percent in P alm Beach County, and over 14 percent in Broward County. These three southeast counties accounted for about 61 percent of all condominium transactions in the state. F igure 3.4 shows that median sales price for condominiums vary widely across counties. The median price of condominium units sold in the state in 2001 was $106,000. Counties with median prices above $200,000 were the $244,750 in Nassau County, $214,900 in Okaloosa County, and $215,000 in W alton County. These are coastal counties and are not part of major MSAs. The relatively high price of portions of the condominium stock in Florida appears to reflect the steep premium paid for the ocean accessibility that is an attribute of many condominiums in coastal settings and the retirement clientele for the units.10 Condominium units in the larger counties have lower median sales prices, including $71,000 11 T otal number of sales in the state was calculated by treating the counties with missing data as having zero sales.

PAGE 50

44The State of Florida's Housing, 2003 T otalTotal T otal% ofAssessed% ofJust ComplexesStateValue ($m)StateValue ($m) Florida155,97410018,15710019,157 Ft. Lauderdale MSA Broward County19,52412.52,76415.22,934 Jacksonville MSA Clay County2770.2270.127 Duval County4,4022.84532.5485 Nassau County3160.2540.359 St. Johns County1,8401.22741.5326 MSA total6,8354.48084.5897 Miami MSA Miami-Dade County32,26320.74,531254,751 Orlando MSA Lake County1,1760.81010.6101 Orange County10,4116.77874.3813 Osceola County8390.5830.584 Seminole County1,1300.7940.596 MSA total13,5568.71,0655.91,093 T ampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater MSA Hernando County4020.3360.237 Hillsborough County5,2223.34532.5464 Pasco County3,8222.52691.5295 Pinellas County13,5068.71,6058.81,771 MSA total22,95214.72,363132,566 W est Palm Beach-Boca Raton MSA Palm Beach County11,3157.31,3417.41,418 Regional subtotal 106,44568.212,87370.913,659 Daytona Beach MSA Flagler County3870.2450.246 Volusia County8,8895.76533.6693 MSA total9,2765.96983.8739 Ft. Myers-Cape Coral MSA Lee County5,6093.66313.5660 Ft. Pierce-Port St. Lucie MSA Martin County9670.6870.589 St. Lucie County1,4780.9970.598 MSA total2,4451.61851187 Ft. Walton Beach MSA Okaloosa County7510.5890.590 Gainesville MSA Alachua County1,7781.11210.7122 Lakeland-Winter Haven MSA Polk County4,3442.82721.5275 Melbourne-Titusville-Palm Bay MSA Brevard County2,9521.93181.8333 Naples MSA Collier County1,9291.22841.6295 Ocala MSA Marion County1,1390.7810.482 Panama City MSA Bay County7800.5780.478 T able 3.3 Multi-Family Stock with Two to Nine Units in Complex

PAGE 51

45 New Complexes% ofAverageRelativeConstructed% ofNumber of StateAgeAge Indexin 2001State2001 Sales100361.005551009,286 15.3381.062)2)1,688 0.12)2)2)2)0 2.5481.3320.4215 0.3280.7820.418 1.7250.69173.171 4.7411.14214304 24.8421.17549.71,931 0.5361.0091.680 4.2250.69112815 0.4250.6981.439 0.5290.8161.145 5.7260.72346.1979 0.2180.50122.218 2.4280.782)2)286 1.5310.8640.7140 9.2511.42132.3871 13.4421.17295.21,315 7.4411.14101.8569 71.3391.0814826.86,786 0.2170.47346.146 3.6260.728815.82) 3.9250.6912221.946 3.4260.728916479 0.5220.612)2)55 0.5361.0010.299 13 1 0.8610.2154 0.5300.8330.517 0.6290.8161.173 1.4300.83264.7239 1.7391.08183.2132 1.5260.72346.172 0.4250.6950.983 0.4210.58101.847 (See Section 3.1 & 3.4 regarding data limitations)

PAGE 52

46The State of Florida's Housing, 2003 T able 3.3 Multi-Family Stock with Two to Nine Units in Complex (continued)Pensacola MSA Escambia County1,8391.21480.8154 Santa Rosa County6080.4600.360 MSA total2,4471.62091.1215 Punta Gorda MSA Charlotte County1,0060.61350.7143 Sarasota-Bradenton MSA Manatee County4,5302.95342.9564 Sarasota County2,2771.53191.8327 MSA total6,8074.48534.7891 T allahassee MSA Gadsden County110909 Leon County2,0021.31881189 MSA total2,0131.31971.1198 Ve ro Beach Indian River County7620.5820.583 Regional subtotal 44,03828.24,23223.34,390 Northwest nonmetropolitan area Calhoun County30202 Franklin County160505 Gulf County20000 Holmes County60101 Jackson County650150.115 Jefferson County120202 Wakulla County180202 Walton County480808 Washington County140303 NMA Total1840.1380.239 Northeast nonmetropolitan area Baker County250404 Bradford County160101 Columbia County2090.1200.120 Dixie County30000 Gilchrist County80101 Hamilton County170505 Lafayette County40000 Levy County680606 Madison County410505 Suwannee County440303 Taylor County70505 Union County80101 NMA Total4500.3510.351 Central nonmetropolitan area Citrus County3730.2270.127 Putnam County1330.1809 Sumter County750506 NMA Total5810.4410.242 South nonmetropolitan area De Soto County1750.1120.112 Glades County350202 Hardee County2290.1110.112 Hendry County3810.2280.228 Highlands County7120.5380.238 Monroe County2,6191.78224.5876 Okeechobee County1250.1100.110 NMA Total4,2762.79225.1977 Regional subtotal 5,4913.51,0535.81,109 1) Fewer than 25 parcels. 2) Data not available.T otalTotal T otal% ofAssessed% ofJust ComplexesStateValue ($m)StateValue ($m)

PAGE 53

47 (See Section 3.1 & 3.4 regarding data limitations)0.8340.94122.274 0.3210.5830.523 1.1310.86152.797 0.7280.78142.592 2.9361.0081.4275 1.7381.0661.1187 4.6371.03142.5462 01)1)002) 12 9 0.81122.2122 12 9 0.81122.2122 0.4300.83193.454 22.9300.8338869.82,169 01)1)002) 01)1)002 01)1)002) 01)1)002) 0.1200.5610.22) 01)1)002) 01)1)002) 01 6 0.4410.22) 01)1)002) 0.22)0.5620.42 02 5 0.69001 01)1)001 0.1270.75005 01)1)002) 01)1)002) 01)1)001 01)1)002) 02 6 0.72003 01 8 0.5020.43 02 5 0.69001 01)1)002) 01)1)002) 0.32)0.7220.415 0.1230.6420.434 03 5 0.97004 02 4 0.6710.25 0.2260.7230.543 0.1310.8610.212 02 7 0.75002) 0.1381.0610.27 0.1310.8610.29 0.2340.942)2)56 4.6421.1771.3183 0.1300.8320.44 5.1391.08122.2271 5.82)1.00193.4331New Complexes% ofAverageRelativeConstructed% ofNumber of StateAgeAge Indexin 2001State2001 Sales

PAGE 54

48The State of Florida's Housing, 2003 Florida Florida14,00010033,20110033,209 Ft. Lauderdale MSA Broward County1,822135,28515.95,289 Jacksonville MSA Clay County420.31650.5165 Duval County5463.92,0506.22,050 Nassau County370.3420.143 St. Johns County350.31700.5170 MSA total6604.72,4287.32,428 Miami MSA Miami-Dade County3,89327.86,22818.86,230 Orlando MSA Lake County1150.81670.5167 Orange County7395.33,76911.43,770 Osceola County920.74221.3422 Seminole County2421.71,32641,326 MSA total1,1888.55,68417.15,684 T ampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater MSA Hernando County460.3390.139 Hillsborough County7555.43,2029.63,202 Pasco County1320.91770.5177 Pinellas County7835.61,7555.31,755 MSA total1,71612.35,17315.65,173 W est Palm Beach-Boca Raton MSA Palm Beach County8005.72,6247.92,624 Regional subtotal10,0797227,42282.627,429 Daytona Beach MSA Flagler County60808 Volusia County4963.54191.3419 MSA total5023.64271.3427 Ft. Myers-Cape Coral MSA Lee County1751.35621.7562 Ft. Pierce-Port St. Lucie MSA Martin County620.41140.3114 St. Lucie County670.51010.3101 MSA total1290.92150.6215 Ft. Walton Beach MSA Okaloosa County14611360.4136 Gainesville MSA Alachua County3922.86251.9625 Lakeland-Winter Haven MSA Polk County28023020.9302 Melbourne-Titusville-Palm Bay MSA Brevard County2691.95441.6544 Naples MSA Collier County1000.75221.6522 Ocala MSA Marion County870.61260.4126 Panama City MSA Bay County1200.91240.4124 T otalTotal T otal% ofAssessed% ofJust ComplexesStateValue ($m)StateValue ($m) T able 3.4 Multi-Family Stock with Ten or More Units in Complex

PAGE 55

49 100.0301.00183100.0643 15.9341.132)2)119 0.52)2)2)2)2) 6.2280.93137.119 0.1210.7042.22 0.5140.4710.52) 7.3270.90189.821 18.8381.272614.2224 0.5210.7021.15 11.4220.73168.730 1.3150.5063.31 41 8 0.60105.54 17.1210.703418.640 0.1160.5331.62) 9.6230.772)2)36 0.5220.7321.15 5.3371.2331.657 15.6290.9784.498 7.9290.972111.516 82.6321.0710758.5518 01)1)1 0.52) 1.3391.3042.22) 1.3391.3052.72) 1.7220.73105.59 0.3230.772)2)3 0.3250.8342.24 0.6240.8042.27 0.4220.7331.61 1.9220.7373.83 0.9270.9000.010 1.6290.9731.610 1.6160.5373.82) 0.4240.8000.01 0.4220.7300.02 New Complexes% ofAverageRelativeConstructed% ofNumber of StateAgeAge Indexin 2001State2001 Sales (See Section 3.1 & 3.5 regarding data limitations)

PAGE 56

50The State of Florida's Housing, 2003 T able 3.4 Multi-Family Stock with Ten or More Units in Complex (continued) T otalTotal T otal% ofAssessed% ofJust ComplexesStateValue ($m)StateValue ($m)Pensacola MSA Escambia County1230.92640.8264 Santa Rosa County240.2270.127 MSA total1471.12910.9291 Punta Gorda MSA Charlotte County250.2530.253 Sarasota-Bradenton MSA Manatee County1160.83951.2395 Sarasota County5323.84671.4467 MSA total6484.68632.6863 T allahassee MSA Gadsden County470.3404 Leon County3482.56471.9647 MSA total3952.86512651 Ve ro Beach Indian River County420.3980.398 Regional subtotal 3,45724.75,53816.75,539 Northwest nonmetropolitan area Calhoun County40101 Franklin County250.2505 Gulf County50404 Holmes County60303 Jackson County150.1303 Jefferson County70.1202 Wakulla County10101 Walton County600.4200.120 Washington County20101 NMA Total1250.9400.140 Northeast nonmetropolitan area Baker County10101 Bradford County160.110010 Columbia County240.2220.122 Dixie County60202 Gilchrist County10000 Lafayette County10101 Levy County110.1606 Madison County80.1303 Suwannee County150.1909 Taylor County20101 Union County40101 NMA Total890.6560.256 Central nonmetropolitan area Citrus County480.3190.119 Putnam County290.2260.126 Sumter County470.3808 NMA Total1240.9530.253 South nonmetropolitan area De Soto County320.213013 Glades County40101 Hardee County80.1505 Hendry County140.1707 Highlands County560.4260.126 Monroe County100.1390.139 Okeechobee County20101 NMA Total1260.9920.392 Regional subtotal 4643.32410.7241 1) Fewer than 25 parcels. 2) Data not available.

PAGE 57

51 (See Section 3.1 & 3.5 regarding data limitations)New Complexes% ofAverageRelativeConstructed% ofNumber of StateAgeAge Indexin 2001State2001 Sales0.8230.7700.02) 0.11)1)00.02) 0.9230.7300.02) 0.2260.8731.62 1.2260.8721.13 1.4260.8700.020 2.6260.8721.123 02 8 0.9310.52) 1.9260.872413.141 22 6 0.872513.741 0.3180.6021.11 16.7270.907138.8110 01)1)0 0.02) 02 2 0.7300.02) 01)1)0 0.02) 01)1)0 0.02) 01)1)0 0.02) 01)1)1 0.51 01)1)0 0.02) 0.1110.3710.51 01)1)0 0.02) 0.12)0.5321.12 01)1)0 0.02) 01)1)0 0.02) 0.11)1)21.11 01)1)0 0.02) 01)1)0 0.02) 01)1)0 0.02) 01)1)0 0.02) 01)1)0 0.02) 01)1)0 0.02) 01)1)0 0.02) 01)1)0 0.02) 0.22)0.8021.11 0.1180.6000.02) 0.1190.6310.52) 02 8 0.9300.06 0.2220.7310.56 02 2 0.7300.01 01)1)0 0.02) 01)1)0 0.02) 01)1)0 0.02) 0.1240.802)2)5 0.11)1)00.02) 01)1)0 0.02) 0.3240.8000.06 0.72)0.7352.715

PAGE 58

52The State of Florida'sHousing 2003 in Broward, $81,000 in Hillsborough, $116,000 in Miami-Dade, and $69,000 in Orange County. While these counties have high priced units, the medians indicate a broader market for condominium units.3.4 Multifamily HousingThe county property appraiser data used in this report do not allow an accounting for the number of units in multifamily rental structures, as only information on the structures (parcels) is reported. It is this information that is summarized below. We divide the multifamily stock, consistent with the appraiser data, into two categories: complexes with less than 10 units and complexes with 10 or more units. T able 3.3 contains summary information on the state's stock of multifamily properties containing fewer than 10 units. There are about 156,000 multifamily properties that contain fewer than 10 units in the state of Florida. A pproximately 68 percent of these are found in the six major metropolitan areas, with another almost 28 percent located in other metropolitan areas. O nly 3.5 percent of these small multifamily complexes are found in nonMSA counties. Almost 21 percent of the units in this category are found in MiamiD ade County. Only nine of the 31 nonMSA counties have more than 100 such complexes, with Monroe having over 61 percent of the non-MSA total. Other non-MSA counties with more than 100 properties were Columbia, Citrus, P utnam, DeSoto, Hardee, Hendry, H ighlands and Okeechobee Counties. These numbers again point to the differences that are observed between the urban, coastal counties and the rural, interior counties of Florida. As with condominium units, which are also likely found in multifamily structures, it is apparent that urban and coastal counties are the predominant settings for such structures while the rural and interior counties are characterized by a largely single-family housing stock. The mean age of multifamily complexes containing 9 or fewer units is 36 years for the state. Counties with the oldest average ages (and at least 100 properties) include Duval (48), MiamiD ade (42), Monroe (42), and Pinellas (51). Counties with more than 100 properties and a relative age index of below 0.6 (the state index is 1.0) include Ba y, F lagler, Hernando, and Santa Rosa. There are few sales of multifamily properties of less than 10 units relative to single-family units, as there were only 9,286 small multifamily properties sold across the state in 200111. Miami-Dade and Broward Counties combined to have almost 39 percent of the sales in the state, and 73 percent of all sales were in major MSA areas. T able 3.4 contains information on multifamily complexes with 10 or more units. With a total of 14,000 complexes in the state, there are about 9 percent as many of these larger complexes as of complexes with less than 10 units, but these complexes undoubtedly comprise more total units than the smaller complexes. About 28 percent of these larger complexes are located in MiamiD ade County, with 13 percent in Br o ward County and 12.3 percent in the Ta mpa Bay MSA. The six major MSAs contain approximately 72 percent of all complexes of this type. The other MSAs contain almost 25 percent of the state total, with Volusia, Alachua, Leon, and S arasota Counties having more than 300 complexes. The Alachua and Leon numbers reflect the concentration of college students in those communities. N on-MSA counties contain only 3.3 percent of the state's stock of larger apartment complexes. The average age of these larger complexes is 30 years. Miami-Dade (38 y ears), Pinellas (37 years), and Volusia (39 years) Cou nties have relatively old stocks of larger complexes. At 21 y ears, the Orlando MSA has the

PAGE 59

53 12 F or a more detailed discussion of the RIMS II approach and the economic impact of real estate, see The Impact of R eal Estate on the Florida Economy 2003 available from the Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing or online (http://www.flhousingdata.shimberg.ufl.edu/reports/index.html).y oungest stock of such complexes among the six major MSAs. There were 183 complexes of greater than 10 units constructed in 2001. A bout 59 percent of this construction occurred in the six major MSAs including over 18 percent in the Orlando MSA. Sales of existing complexes in this category totaled 643 in 2001, with approximately 35 percent in MiamiD ade County and over 80 percent in the major MSAs.3.5 Impact of Housing on the Florida EconomyThere are a number of ways in which the impact of housing on the Florida economy might be measured. For example, we might examine the number of jobs created in the construction and related industries, the payroll on those jobs, or the materials cost of a housing unit. We examine two simple measures. F irst, in 2001 there were 281,480 sales of single family housing units (new and existing). With an average sales price of $130,000, these transactions total over $36.6 billion in sales. This figure is the basis from which transaction fees, transfer taxes, mortgage fees, purchases of new furnishings and equipment, and other expenditures flowing into the economy are generated. Second, the total assessed v alue of the single family housing stock in the state was over $451 billion in 2001. This figure is the basis for property taxes as well as a measure of the wealth of households. The figure does not include condominiums, multifamily rental structures, or manufactured housings. The U.S. Department of Commerce Bu reau of Economic Analysis (BEA) has created a Regional Input-Output M odeling System (RIMS II) which is used to analyze economic impacts. The RIMS II system allows economic impacts to be estimated for three categories, economic output, earnings, and employment. Using the appropriate RIMS II multipliers, and assuming the 80,034 new single-family units have an average value of $130,000, this construction creates 391,206 jobs, has an economic output impact of almost $22 billion, and creates $7.4 billion in earnings.12 Assuming an average millage rate of 17.12 for the state this new construction generates approximately $178 million in local taxes.3.6 SummaryThe county property appraiser data provides a wealth of data on characteristics of the housing stock across the state. The county-by-county and MSA summaries clearly show differences in the importance of single-family properties, condominiums, and multifamily properties. Also apparent are differences across the state in the age and size of units. Finally, there are significant differences in the numbers of transactions each year and in the median v alues of properties. The differences show that the state might be characterized as two states when thinking about the housing market, with the large urban and coastal counties at one extreme and the small, rural inland counties at the other.

PAGE 60

54The State of FloridasHousing 2003 1 Affordability indices are calculated by NAR only for the nine largest metropolitan areas in Florida. Moreover, most of these MSAs are recent additions to the report, and thus provide little historical information on how housing affordability has changed over time and across counties. In addition, the affordability indices published by NAR are based only on homes that have sold through the use of a multiple listing service. Thus, the home sales used to calculate the median sale price may not be representative of all housing stock in the area.Due to a mathematical error, the H istoric Affordability Index and County Affordability Index tables in the 2003 S tate of Florida's Housing contain incorrect information for 30 counties. The corrected tables are T able 4.1 Historic Affordability I ndex County Affordability Index T able 4.2 County Affordability I ndex and Rank This error changes the level, but not the trend, of the affordability numbers and changes the rank of some counties, but the overall conclusions drawn in the r eport remain the same: housing affordability decreased in Florida last year due to the reasons mentioned in the report. We regret the mistake.4. Housing AffordabilityD ouglas White, Florida Data Clearinghouse, Shimberg Center, U niversity of Florida Ma rc T. Smith, Ph.D., Shimberg Center, University of Florida4.1 IntroductionThe affordability of housing is an important issue nationally and in the state of Florida. Households are concerned about it because affordability affects their ability to become a homeowner, as well as the size and amenities of the home they are able to purchase. Real estate salespersons and other industry participants also are concerned, because the number of households able to afford the purchase of a home is an important determinant of single-family sales activity in their local markets. Housing affordability also has become an important public policy issue, as home ownership is viewed as being an important goal for both individual and societal reasons. Three factors are the primary determinants of the affordability of housing. These are household income, housing prices, and mortgage rates. For a household considering homeo wnership, an additional factor is the rate of appreciation in housing prices. This chapter begins with a discussion of affordability using a homeownership cost index measure. It then investigates issues of housing affordability using a concept called cost burden.4.2 Housing Affordability IndexO ne measure of housing affordability is the cost of homeownership, commonly conveyed through housing affordability indices. These indices generally indicate that affordability increased substantially towards the end of the last decade, primarily as a result of lower interest rates during that period. A housing affordability index for an area brings together the price and the income elements that contribute to housing affordability. The most common index construction method is that used by the N ational Association of Realtors (NAR). The NAR index measures the ability of the median income household in an area to afford a median priced house. In addition to the median income and median house price in an area, index construction requires the current mortgage interest rate, assumptions about the down payment required to purchase the median price home, and the maximum percentage of household income that can be spent on housing. An index of 100 indicates the typical (median) family in the area has sufficient income to purchase a single-family home selling at the median price.1 M edian house prices are calculated from the DOR county property appraiser datasets. M edian household incomes come from the 2000 decennial US Census. Although important, median sale prices in a county or MSA do not alone determine housing affordability. A second important factor is the income of area residents. The highest household incomes in Florida are generally in the coastal counties that also contain many high priced housing units. However, median household incomes and singlefamily house prices in an area are only moderately correlated which can lead to significant differences in housing affordability across counties and MSAs. Our index construction method can be represented by the following formula:Revised February 2004

PAGE 61

55 Affordability Index = M edian Family Income Q ualifying Income x 100 = = 103.9% $35,000 4 x 12(0.80 x $100,000) x 0.008776 $35,000 $33,700 2 The NAR also uses the effective mortgage rates supplied by the Federal Housing Finance Board and assumes, as we do, that the income needed to qualitfy for standard financing is four times the annual mortgage payment. Thus, our calculated affordability indexes are directly comparable to those calculated by NAR for the country's largest metropolitan areas.Q ualifying income is defined as the income needed to qualify for a mortgage to finance an existing median-priced home. As an example, if median family income in the area is $35,000, the median price of an existing home is $100,000, and the mortgage interest rate is 10 percent, the calculated affordability index is 103.9: The denominator is the annual mortgage payment, multiplied by 4, because the income needed to qualify for a 20 percent down, 10-percent, monthly payment loan is assumed to be four times the annual mortgage payment. This is equivalent to a household spending 25 percent of their monthly income on mortgage costs, and is consistent with the qualifying ratio used by residential mortgage lenders. The calculated index of 103.9 indicates that median household income in the area is slightly (3.9 percent) higher than that needed to qualify for the loan. The higher the calculated affordability index, the easier it is for a household in the area with median income to purchase a medianpriced home. To calculate affordability indices for each county and MSA, mortgage rates for each year are obtained from the F ederal Housing Finance Board. These effective mortgage rates (points are amortized over 10 years) combine fixed and adjustable rate loans.2We calculate affordability indices (Exhibit 4-1) for all counties in Florida and for the years for which we have sufficient data (at least 25 sales each year, as the sales provide the basis for the calculation of a median sales price of a home). Our index calculations differ from those of the NAR because we use the property appraiser data as the source for home sales transaction prices rather than the Multiple Listing Service¨ used by the Realtors, and our median income is household rather than family income. O ur numbers are therefore not directly comparable, but do give an indication of relative affordability across the state. T able 4.1 illustrates that consistently across counties and MSAs, the affordability indices developed for this r eport show housing affordability improving in Florida throughout the 1990s (i.e. the level of the affordability index has generally increased). However in many counties and MSAs there was a decline in affordability between 1999 and 2001. Florida's improved housing affordability in the 1990s is consistent with an increase in affordability at the national level. In 1990, the U.S. affordability index was 109.5. In 1999 the index had risen to 139.1. That is, the median household income in the U.S. was 39.1 percent greater than that needed to purchase a median price home (using standard financing). In Florida the median of 67 counties was 156.81 in 1991, 158.91 in 1999, and 140.98 in 2001(the Florida median is not directly comparable to the national number because the Florida median is derived from the 67 county indices). While experiencing an increase in affordability throughout the nineties, last year Florida experienced a decline in affordability. In the calculation of an affordability index, the mortgage interest rate is a key component because of its role in

PAGE 62

56The State of Florida'sHousing 2003 3 Interest rate data is from the Federal Housing Finance Board.4 Unemployment figures are from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor.5 Per capita personal income figures are from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Accounts Data.determining the qualifying income needed to purchase the median priced house. A large reason for the increased affordability throughout the nineties was the continued decline of mortgage rates. The national average mortgage rate for a single-family home was 9.74% in 1990, and it had fallen to 7.96% by 2000, and continued to decline to 6.51% in 2002.3The combination of low interest rates and the recent lackluster return to the stock market has lead many to invest in r eal estate. This increased investment has caused home prices to dramatically increase over the last few years and led to concern that a speculative bubble is forming in the housing market. Another important factor that contributed to the increased affordability in the 1990s was the steady increase in median household incomes. In fact, median incomes generally increased faster than median house prices over the 1990s time period. However, unemployment in Florida increased from 3.6% in January 2000 to 5.3% in Ja nuary 2003.4 N ot surprisingly, per capita personal income barely increased from $28,366 in 2000 to $29,596 in 2002.5 This slow income growth while housing prices continue to appreciate explains the recent decrease in housing affordability. In interpreting the affordability indices for each county, several caveats should be considered. First, as a result of the limited sales transactions in some smaller counties, the median sale price may vary considerably from year to year. This fluctuation in the estimated median house price produces an exaggerated v ariability in the calculated affordability index. Second, the calculation of the index using median house prices and incomes may mask the distribution of affordability across the various income brackets within a county or MSA. For example, if house prices in a county tend to be tightly distributed around their median value, while incomes are more widely dispersed, then affordability problems will exist at the lower income ranges that are not identified by the affordability index. Thus, standard indices based on median house prices and median incomes are only one measure of housing affordability. What the affordability indices provide is an indication of the relative change in affordability within counties over time, and the relative affordability of housing across counties. T able 4. 2 ranks the affordability of each county. Eight Florida counties had an affordability index below 100 in 2001. The least affordable counties [i.e., those with ranks closer to 65, only 65 counties are included because insufficient sales precluded the inclusion of Liberty and Volusia County] included seven counties in major metropolitan areas, Miami-Dade which ranked 60th, Br o ward which ranked 59th, Lake which ranked 58th, Osceola which ranked 55th, N assau which ranked 56th, Saint Johns which ranked 54th, and Palm Beach which ranked 52nd, two other MSA counties, Martin (53), and Collier (57), and coastal counties in south Florida and on the panhandle including Gulf (61), F ranklin (64), Monroe (65), and Walton (62). Monroe (the Florida Keys), a growth restricted county with a unique environment, is the least affordable with an affordability index of 66.58. The index exceeds the 2001 national average of 135.7 in 43 of the 65 counties. At the other extreme, the most affordable counties are generally rural counties in the interior of the state, mostly in the north part of the state. B radford County is Florida's most affordable county in 2001 (index = 213.04). Other top 10 high affordability

PAGE 63

57 T able 4.1 Historic Affordability Index County Affordability Index19921994199519961997199819992001 Major Metr o Ar eas Ft. Lauderdale MSA Broward CountyNANANANANANANA92.12 Jacksonville MSA Clay County162.92162.71144.28157.38155.48165.66172.55154.34 Duval CountyNANANANANANA150.39141.34 Nassau County133.42131.90126.89120.29117.80121.49126.88106.43 St. Johns County127.51109.2396.58101.5398.23106.51115.48111.62 Miami MSA Miami-Dade County105.2393.9482.8190.9388.0193.72100.4087.46 Orlando MSA Lake County124.69113.22111.99108.39108.63106.94132.4599.11 Orange County130.14121.88127.83131.05131.59137.79138.39133.28 Osceola County130.53118.10118.80127.03122.90120.10140.37108.89 Seminole County148.25142.21134.33144.00146.89151.52147.42160.11 T ampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater MSA Hernando County150.45135.93136.56134.91145.81145.51162.59146.71 Hillsborough County135.01131.12126.57131.99134.02139.04134.43145.32 Pasco CountyNANANANANANANA129.00 Pinellas County132.01122.76120.13125.87132.90136.63137.12126.08 W est Palm Beach-Boca Raton MSA Palm Beach County113.82111.76107.38116.85114.86133.15121.30112.04 Other Metr o Ar eas Daytona Beach MSA Flagler County116.01106.3497.51118.14133.32132.63150.05139.19 Volusia County136.95128.73124.86130.17131.87140.40156.15NA Ft. Myers-Cape Coral MSA Lee County126.97113.13106.08107.38106.33115.21123.54114.22 Ft. Pierce-Port St. Lucie MSA Martin County116.66104.41104.03103.67102.39114.82111.98112.02 St. Lucie County168.69156.60148.36155.05155.04156.74172.38153.78 Ft. Walton Beach MSA Okaloosa County145.54142.47133.34142.10142.22143.32153.24159.92 Gainesville MSA Alachua County114.77115.78113.74114.85112.86115.59114.99121.38 Lakeland-Winter Haven MSA Polk County146.53137.99135.57138.05143.46154.25161.68147.89 Melbourne-Titusville-Palm Bay MSA Brevard County155.77151.23146.83151.04147.19147.06163.37146.35 Naples MSA Collier County100.8098.4788.7597.6895.5798.12103.99103.01 Ocala MSA Marion County157.05125.83124.44133.12130.27136.11149.10136.12 Panama City MSA Bay County144.82149.03136.71142.90139.72140.29148.66135.77 Pensacola MSA Escambia County144.82156.43161.85147.31136.56142.29143.17143.77 Santa Rosa County151.34138.31126.71138.39131.59136.48151.18136.71Revised February 2004

PAGE 64

58The State of Florida's Housing, 2003 T able 4.1 Historic Affordability Index County Affordability Index (continued)19921994199519961997199819992001 Punta Gorda MSA Charlotte County141.41125.61119.48128.68128.44132.95154.05120.42 Sarasota-Bradenton MSA Manatee County122.53119.51117.24119.60118.54120.41118.49116.40 Sarasota County136.12120.06116.93122.57119.83132.98129.61114.94 T allahassee MSA Gadsden County137.01135.71131.23146.17122.71134.15169.44142.52 Leon County144.56144.46128.73136.62144.79145.17142.82154.66 Ve ro Beach Indian River County152.63146.47145.46145.55151.74170.00156.82152.57 Nonmetr o County Regions Northwest nonmetropolitan area Calhoun County186.57192.39179.82167.72174.73190.35182.10179.76 Franklin County123.4889.8585.0776.8393.4178.1577.0672.12 Gulf County166.32143.41146.43161.99137.36118.07114.1084.92 Holmes County201.00193.65188.88176.34209.71197.12210.89195.50 Jackson County154.89191.47155.73160.16150.45155.87191.62148.41 Jefferson CountyNA218.45240.65171.68200.90190.92191.32168.56 W akulla CountyNA141.97144.58136.58140.86138.16143.74137.30 W alton County169.54114.97103.74105.2888.0087.6493.9583.55 W ashington County176.74184.07182.72177.71173.26176.84210.46174.41 Northeast nonmetropolitan area Baker County178.36196.58196.48182.13159.80171.26190.99179.40 Bradford County204.00203.27179.53171.62188.40189.75178.68213.04 Columbia County142.20153.65152.04167.16155.47153.66159.43164.52 Dixie County198.51191.68199.59164.72NA173.00220.39147.12 Gilchrist County203.16124.43189.25145.38116.15170.58159.30147.45 Lafayette CountyNANANANANA208.31212.93201.71 Levy County158.35151.97138.16148.48128.56159.69160.00153.04 Madison County203.35212.91215.78175.91166.05169.04174.75174.31 Suwannee County207.12160.67168.57156.84144.87168.45181.40141.95 T aylor County199.46147.17182.01179.37189.41194.74197.38178.70 Union CountyNANANANANANANA161.08 Central nonmetropolitan area Citrus County152.98148.84132.14143.10151.28145.48166.90146.80 Putnam County149.55146.02155.12156.39167.84172.72163.39166.12 Sumter CountyNANANANANANA106.5079.66 South nonmetropolitan area De Soto County159.69182.96168.86160.58172.81147.04165.36155.32 Glades County133.25132.51134.98182.99162.45158.28182.64169.14 Hardee County262.56263.51210.55199.86201.89197.01214.62189.27 Hendry County135.90160.80150.26147.87165.94186.73194.77200.03 Highlands County155.31148.61131.13134.03140.93161.01179.00165.04 Monroe County79.5572.4164.2570.3867.6474.2270.2166.58 Okeechobee County162.21145.86145.68157.16145.63150.86176.58164.01

PAGE 65

59 index counties in 2001 include Lafayette, Hendry, Holmes, Hardee, Calhoun, Baker, Taylor, Washington, and Madison. These counties, with the exception of Taylor County, are inland, rural, and characterized by relatively low median house prices. It should be emphasized that most of the counties with the highest affordability indices also had fewer than 300 transactions in 2001. The small number of transactions is not surprising in small counties, but may be indicative of the level of competition in the market and therefore the pressure on housing prices. Also, with so few transactions, the estimated median house price is subject to more random variation from year to year, and thus likely overstates the true variation in affordability in these small counties.4.3 Cost BurdenThe affordability index indicates that housing became more affordable in F lorida in the late 1990s as compared to the early part of the decade. The primary factor in increasing affordability is the decline in mortgage interest rates during the period. Ho we ve r, the use of indices focuses only on the average and masks what is happening at the low end. In addition, the index reported only examines owneroccupied housing. For households of lower income, the loss of affordable housing from the stock and price increases that have exceeded the growth in incomes, among other factors, have led to a worsening problem of housing affordability. As a means of examining the number of households with a housing affordability problem, we calculate a number called "cost burden." Cost burden is our estimate of the number of T able 4.2 County Affordability Index and RankCounty 2001 2001 RankRevised February 2004County 2001 2001 Rank Bradford213.04 Most Affordable Lafayette201.712 Hendry200.033 Holmes195.504 Hardee189.275 Calhoun179.766 Baker179.407 T aylor178.708 W ashington174.419 Madison174.3110 Glades169.1411 Jefferson168.5612 Putnam166.1213 Highlands165.0414 Columbia164.5215 Okeechobee164.0116 Union161.0817 Seminole160.1118 Okaloosa159.9219 DeSoto155.3220 Leon154.6621 Clay154.3422 Saint Lucie153.7823 Levy153.0424 Indian River152.5725 Hamilton149.1726 Jackson148.4127 Polk147.8928 Gilchrist147.4529 Dixie147.1230 Citrus146.8031 Hernando146.7132 Brevard146.3533 Hillsborough145.3234 Escambia143.7735 Gadsden142.5236 Suwannee141.9537 Duval141.3438 Flagler139.1939 W akulla137.3040 Santa Rosa136.7141 Marion136.1242 Bay135.7743 Orange133.2844 Pasco129.0045 Pinellas126.0846 Alachua121.3847 Charlotte120.4248 Manatee116.4049 Sarasota114.9450 Lee114.2251 Palm Beach112.0452 Martin112.0253 Saint Johns111.6254 Osceola108.8955 Nassau106.4356 Collier103.0157 Lake99.1158 Broward92.1259 Miami-Dade87.4660 Gulf84.9261 W alton83.5562 Sumter79.6663 Franklin72.1264 Monroe66.58 Least Affordable LibertyNA V olusiaNA

PAGE 66

60The State of Florida'sHousing 2003 F lorida renter households paying more than 30 percent of their income toward housing costs. The 30 percent figure corresponds to that used in federal housing programs and is a common standard used to assess housing affordability problems. Our calculation is for renter households only. While over 20 percent of the State's owner households are also cost burdened, the renter households are the targets of most assistance programs historically. T able 4.3 shows that our estimate is that in the year 2002 there were about 1.9 million renter households in Florida. Of these households, about 809,000 we re cost burdened, representing 41.6 percent of all renters. Of the households paying more than 30 percent of their income toward rent, over 361,000 (almost 45 percent) pay more than 50 percent. Most of the households paying more than 50 percent of their income toward housing costs had incomes below 50 percent of the median income for their area. A bout 20 percent of the cost burdened renter households reside in M iami-Dade County. With 11.5 percent in Broward County and 6.5 percent in Palm Beach County, our estimate is that more than one-third, 38 percent, of cost burdened households are located in the three south Florida counties. An additional 15 percent of the state's cost burdened households are in the Tampa Bay metropolitan area, so that a total of 53 percent of Florida's r enter households experiencing cost burden are located in four MSAs. T able 4.3. Cost Burden Renters in FloridaIncome as Percent of Area Median Cost Burden Family IncomeAll Renters30-50% 50+ % <30%353,06943,383217,315 30-49.9%290,570124,412109,886 50-79.9%425,173202,65328,248 80-119.9%428,90464,2345,477 120+ %445,97412,778458 Grand Total1,943,690447,460361,384

PAGE 67

61 5. Florida House Price Tr ends: Market Comparisons and Fo r ecastsD ean H. Gatzlaff, Ph.D. FSU Real Estate Center The Florida State University5.1 IntroductionBu oy ed by historically low mortgage interest rates, the inflation-adjusted price of single-family homes in Florida has steadily increased since 1996. On average, house prices have increased by almost 4.0 percent per year over and above the general rate of inflation over the last five years. This real rate of increase is higher than during any other five-year period we've recorded, including the high appreciation period of the 1970s. Estimates indicate that, other than in perhaps some areas of central Florida and northwest Florida, the events of September 11, 2001 and the sluggish U.S. economy have not slowed recent house price increases. Pr eliminary estimates indicate that, on average, house prices in Florida have increased by 8.00 percent annually since 2000. When compared to the general annual rate of inflation of 1.97 percent ov er this same period, it yields an average r eal house price appreciation rate of 6.03 percent. The persistence in this price trend has resulted in an upward revision to our previously reported Florida house price appreciation forecasts for the 2001 to 2010 periodfrom 3.28 percent to 4.97 percent, annually. The purpose of this report is to document single-family house price movements for the state of Florida.1 The r eport is organized as follows. In the next section, Section 5.2, Florida-wide singlefamily house price indices are reported for the 1971 to 2002 period (preliminary estimates for 2002) and compared with changes in the consumer price index (CPI-U), the broad stock market index (S&P500), and a long-term government bond index. In Section 5.3, relative house price appreciation rates in Florida's 11 planning districts from 1981 to 2002 are compared and contrasted. In addition, house price movements in the larger urban areas are compared to the smaller, more rural, areas. A comparison of relative house price appreciation among the 20 Florida MSAs is presented in Section 5.4. Section 5.5 reports average annual house price movements from 1996 to 2001 for individual counties where sufficient data are available. County transaction data were aggregated where adequate data were not available to provide reasonably reliable r esults. Projected house price appreciation rates are reported for the 2001 to 2010 period in Section 5.6.5.2 Statewide Measures of Single-Family House Prices in FloridaThe annual movement in the overall price of single-family housing in Florida for the last 30 years is summarized in F igure 5.1 and Table 5.1. Figure 5.1 indicates annual house price appreciation in the state of Florida climbed as high as 17.5 percent in 1978 and experienced 1 To avoid the problems associated with inferring price appreciation from the changes in median sale prices, (e.g., median sale prices are reported by the National Association of Realtors) estimates of house price appreciation are constructed using a "repeat-sale" method. This method has been shown to produce reliable estimates of appreciation while holding "constant" any changes in house characteristics that have occurred over time. Implementation of the method requires actual transaction data from individual properties that have sold more than once; thus, the index is applicable to existing house prices. Note that each Florida county property appraiser retains the two most recent transaction prices, if sold twice, for each property in their county. Unfortunately, updating the index is complicated because the entire index is "revised" when new sale data are added each year, and older sale information for properties selling a third time are deleted. The most reliable index estimate occurs in the period spanned by the most representative sample of repeat sales. In updating the indices, the average holding period is assumed to be approximately 10 years and a final index level is reported for 1992. Index levels after 1991 will be subsequently revised as additional sale data become available.

PAGE 68

62The State of Florida'sHousing 2003 declines of nearly 1 percent in 1977 and 1991. In the inflationary 1970s, house prices increased dramatically and were characterized by both high levels of appreciation and volatility. During this period, annual appreciation rates averaged 9.52 percent statewide. This is contrasted with an annual inflation rate of 8.11 percent. Hence, inflationadjusted house prices increased, on average, 1.41 percent per year (0.0952 0.0811 = 0.0141). W ith the exception of 1981, annual house price changes in the 1980s were substantially diminishedhovering between 1.89 and 3.29 percent. Annual house price appreciation averaged only 3.01 percent for the period, compared to an average inflation rate of 4.51. Thus, inflation-adjusted house price increases we re negative at 1.50 percent. In fact, only in 1986 did house price appreciation exceed inflation during the decade. R evised estimates for the 1990s indicate that this characteristic continued through the first half of the 1990s. However, a re versal of this trend occurred in the mid1990s and continued through the last half of the 1990s. On average, from 1991 to 1995 Florida house prices increased at a rate of 1.46 percent per y ear compared to average inflation rates of 2.98 percent. In contrast, the 1996 to 2000 period saw house prices increase 4.72 percent per year, while general inflation slowed to 2.54 percent to yield an inflation-adjusted rate of appreciation 2.18 percent. This trend has strengthened into the 2000s, where preliminary estimates indicate average annual house appreciation rates of 8.00 percent in 2001 and 2002. This compares to only 1.97 percent average annual inflation, yielding historically high inflation-adjusted appreciation estimates of 6.03 percent. Over the 30-year period nominal house price returns averaged approximately 10 percent per year. This rate includes an implicit rent of 5 percent that is necessary to compute for homeownership.2 This rate compares favorably to average annual rates of 14.45 and 9.87 percent for stocks (S&P 500) and bonds (long-term government bonds), respectively. A wide deviation in relative returns between single-family housing, stocks, and bonds can be seen in the 10-year summaries of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. It is interesting to note the preliminary 2002 annual returns are 13.11 percent for housing, compared to -22.11, 17.84, and 2.38 percent rates for stocks, bonds and the CPI, r espectivelyan exceptionally strong re lative performance period for housing. Pr eliminary estimates indicate that house prices, adjusted for inflation, have risen quicker during the 1997 to 2002 period than any other consecutive five-year period reported. 2 The implicit rent, or dividend, received by households due to homeownership is generally assumed by urban and financial economists to be approximately 4 to 6 percent. Although the dividend for rental housing is generally in the range of 7 to 10 percent, occupants of owner-occupied housing generally consume more (larger) housing relative to the rent the home would command in an open market. Thus, the implied dividend (net rent / market v alue) they receive for renting, implicitly from themselves, is less as a percent of the value of the asset than traditional rental housing. Note: 2002 values are preliminary. House price appreciation rates are derived from the Florida House Price Index (all counties) for years 1981 to 2002, and from the Florida House Price Index (six largest MSAs) for years 1971 to 1980. General inflation is derived from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index (CPI-U). B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 BAnnual Apprec. JGeneral HReal HP Figure 5.1 Florida Annual House Price Index and Appreciation (1971-2002)

PAGE 69

63 T able 5.1 Summary of Florida House Price Appreciation, Housing Returns, Inflation, and Selected Asset Classes (1971-2002)NominalReal HouseHouseNominalNominalNominal PriceGeneralPriceReturns toReturns toReturns toApprec.InflationApprec.HousingStocksBonds 1971-1980Annual Mean9.528.111.4114.5210.344.11 1981-1990Annual Mean3.014.51-1.508.0114.6314.51 1991-2000Annual Mean3.092.760.338.0918.3911.00 1971-2000Annual Mean5.215.130.0810.2114.459.87 1971-2000Std. Dev.5.113.273.55 n.a.16.4512.30 2001-2002Annual Mean8.001.976.0313.00-17.0010.88 2002-prelim.Annual Mean8.112.385.7313.11-22.1117.84Note: 2002 values are preliminary. House price appreciation rates are derived from the Florida House Price Index (all countie s) for years 1981 to 2002, and from the Florida House Price Index (six largest MSAs) for years 1971 to 1980. General inflation is derived from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index (CPI-U). Returns to housing assume a five-percent long-run dividend to housing from implicit rent. Returns to stocks (S&P500) and bonds (Long-Term Government Bonds) are as reported by Ibbotson Associates (Stocks, Bonds, Bills and Inflation, 2002). Note: 2002 values are preliminary. House price appreciation rates for "All MSA" and "Non-MSA counties" are derived from aggregate index of all 20 Florida MSAs and the aggregate index estimated for the counties not in any of the 20 Florida MSAs, respectively. B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002-0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 BAll MSAs JNon-MSAs Figure 5.2 District-Level Measures of Single-Family House Price Appriciation in Florida

PAGE 70

64The State of Florida'sHousing 2003 5.3 District-Level Measures of Single-Family House Price Appreciation in FloridaA comparison of annual appreciation rates for housing located in large metropolitan areas designated as M etropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) by the U.S. Bureau of the Census versus housing located outside of MSA designated areas is charted in Figure 5.2. S ingle-family housing located in the nonMSA counties consistently experienced higher rates of appreciation from 1986 to 1998. Recently, from 1999 to 2001, house prices have increased at a greater rate in the MSA-designated counties than in the smaller areas. Preliminary estimates indicate this trend continues into 2002. Comparing house price movements among the eleven planning districts in F lorida reveals some patterns.3 F igure 5.3 charts the average annual house price appreciation for two decades (1981-90 and 1991-2000) and for the first two years of the 2000s (2001-2002) for each of the planning districts. Statewide annual house price appreciation averaged just over 3.0 percent both decades. Ho we ve r, it is clear from Figure 5.3 that in general South Florida (i.e., Districts 8, 9, 10, & 11) experienced higher rates of appreciation in the 1980s than North F lorida (Districts 1, 2, & 3). This trend then reversed in the 1990s. Notably, average annual appreciation rates in the 2000s are dramatically higher than in either of the two previous decadesa trend that is forecasted later to slow. T able 5.2 details the period trends in appreciation across the districts of the state. It is interesting to note that No r theast Florida, West Florida and the Ta mpa Bay area experienced high rates of house price appreciation, relative to the state in the early 1980s. The second half of the 1980s was marked by high rates of house price appreciation in South F lorida. These are followed by high rates in West Florida, Apalachee, and North Central districts from 1991-1995. H ouse price indices are reported for each district in Table 5.3.4 In the late 1990s, appreciation rates in Northeast Florida, Ta mpa Bay, and South Florida exceeded other districts. It is interesting to note that South Florida has experienced ve ry rapid appreciation during the last two years. Annual rates of house price appreciation and the respective correlation of the 21-year series are noted in Tables 5.4 and 5.5. House price movements are found to be highly correlated among Districts 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 (i.e., through East Central, Central, Tampa Bay, Southwest Florida, 3 The counties included in each of the eleven planning districts are noted in Table 5.14.4 N ote that sufficient transaction data were not available to report 2002 appreciation estimates at the district, MSA, and county level; however, preliminary statewide measures are estimated and reported. Note: District 1 (Bay, Escambia, Holmes, Okaloosa, Santa Rosa, Walton, and Washington Cos.), District 2 (Calhoun, Franklin, Gadsden, Gulf, Jackson, Jefferson, Leon, Liberty, and Wakulla Cos.), District 3 (Alachua, Bradford, Columbia, Dixie, Gilchrist, Hamilton, Lafayette, Madison, Suwannee, Taylor, and Union Cos.), District 4 (Baker, Clay, [adeq. data not avail. for Duival], Nassau, Putnam, and St. Johns Cos.), District 5 (Citus, Levy, Marion, and Sumter Cos.), District 6 (Brevard, Flagler, Lake, Orange, Osceola, Seminole, and Volusia Cos.), District 7 (De Soto, Hardee, Highlands, Okeechobee, and Polk Cos.), District 8 (Hernando, Hillsborough, Manatee, Pasco, Pinellas, and Sarasota Cos.), District 9 (Charlotte, Collier, Glades, Hendry, and Lee Cos.), District 10 (Indian River, Martin, Palm Beach, and St. Lucie Cos.), and District 11 (Broward, Dade, and Monroe Cos.) Florida All MSAs Non-MSAs Dist.-1 Dist.-2 Dist.-3 Dist.-4 Dist.-5 Dist.-6 Dist.-7 Dist.-8 Dist.-9 Dist.-10 Dist.-110 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 1981-90 1991-00 2001-02 Figure 5.3 Average Annual House Price Appreciation Florida MSAs, Non-MSAs, and Districts (1981-2002)

PAGE 71

65 and South Florida including the O rlando, and Miami areas), and between the districts comprising J acksonville, Orlando, and Tampa5.4 MSA-Level Measures of Single-Family House Price Appreciation in FloridaAv erage annual rates of appreciation are listed for five-year periods from 1981-2000 and the 2001-2002 period in Table 5.6, as well as the relative ranking of each MSA's among the 20 MSAs with respect to its house price increases. During the 1980 to 1985 period, the larger MSAs of Jacksonville and Tampa-St. Petersburg generally led other MSAs in house price appreciation. In the later half of the 1980s, MSAs located in the southern portion of the state, particularly MSAs such as Naples, P unta Gorda, and Ft. Myers in the southeast led the rest of the state in house price appreciation. The 1991 to 1995 period, a slow growth period, saw a change in this trend with relatively rapid appreciation in the northwest area of Fl orida. During the first half of the 1990s, areas such as Panama City, Ft. W alton Beach, Pensacola, and Tallahassee outperformed all other MSAs with the exception of Miami. In the last half of the 1990s, the trend in house price appreciation looked much like the early 1980s, with Jacksonville, Tampa-St. P etersburg and Naples once again among the state's leaders. Early estimates indicate that the MSAs in south Florida have experienced exceptionally rapid house price appreciation in the first couple years after 2000. It is interesting to note that the Naples and Miami MSAs were among the highest quartile in terms of average annual house price appreciation rates in three of the four five year periods studied, and have continued to experience rapid appreciation rates into the 2000s. In addition, most areas experienced periods T able 5.2 Average Annual Percentage Appreciation and Period Rankings by District For Selected Periods (19812002) )District1981-851986-901991-951996-002001-02 Florida (All Districts)3.432.581.464.728.00 Florida (All MSAs)3.442.541.414.728.08 Florida (All Non-MSA counties)3.313.422.384.706.63 District 1: West Florida4.24 (3)0.22 (11)3.34 (1)4.73 (5)3.78 (10) District 2: Apalachee2.80 (7)1.91 (8)3.01 (2)4.34 (9)6.69 (5) District 3: North Central Florida1.89 (10)2.93 (4)2.80 (3)4.82 (4)4.83 (9) District 4: Northeast Florida6.14 (1)1.97 (7)2.19 (5)5.45 (1)7.68 (4) District 5: Withlacoochee2.88 (5)1.60 (10)0.95 (9)3.71 (11)5.06 (8) District 6: East Central Florida4.06 (4)2.19 (5)1.03 (8)4.44 (7)6.47 (6) District 7: Central Florida2.65 (8)1.62 (9)2.05 (6)3.72 (10)2.90 (11) District 8: Tampa Bay4.53 (2)2.05 (6)1.45 (7)5.27 (2)7.93 (3) District 9: Southwest Florida1.43 (11)4.41 (1)0.33 (11)4.35 (8)7.96 (2) District 10: Treasure Coast2.87 (6)3.33 (3)0.67 (10)4.59 (6)5.65 (7) District 11: South Florida2.21 (9)3.75 (2)2.53 (4)4.97 (3)10.96 (1)Note: Estimates for 2002 are preliminary. Shaded areas denote top quartile ranking. District 1 (Bay, Escambia, Holmes, Okaloo sa, Santa Rosa, Walton, and Washington Cos.), District 2 (Calhoun, Franklin, Gadsden, Gulf, Jackson, Jefferson, Leon, Liberty, and W akulla Cos.), District 3 (Alachua, Bradford, Columbia, Dixie, Gilchrist, Hamilton, Lafayette, Madison, Suwannee, Taylor, and Union Co s.), District 4 (Baker, Clay, [adeq. data not avail. for Duval], Nassau, Putnam, and St. Johns Cos.), District 5 (Citus, Levy, Mari on, and Sumter Cos.), District 6 (Brevard, Flagler, Lake, Orange, Osceola, Seminole, and Volusia Cos.), District 7 (De Soto, Hardee, Highlands, Okeechobee, and Polk Cos.), District 8 (Hernando, Hillsborough, Manatee, Pasco, Pinellas, and Sarasota Cos.), District 9 (Cha rlotte, Collier, Glades, Hendry, and Lee Cos.), District 10 (Indian River, Martin, Palm Beach, and St. Lucie Cos.), and District 11 (B r oward, Dade, and Monroe Cos.)

PAGE 72

66The State of Florida'sHousing 2003 T able 5.3 Annual House Price Indices for Florida Districts (1980-2001)AllAllNonDist.Dist.Dist.Dist.Dist.Dist.Dist.Dist.Dist.Dist.Dist. FL MSA MSA 1234567891011 19801.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.000 19811.0721.0741.0471.0691.0740.9931.1411.0611.0661.0731.1001.0771.0841.066 19821.0981.0991.0841.1241.0921.0201.1921.1201.0871.0771.1291.0681.0971.091 19831.1291.1301.1071.1501.1271.0961.2301.0911.1381.1051.1761.0601.1261.101 19841.1601.1591.1661.1981.1491.1451.2981.1511.1871.1321.2191.0711.1381.107 19851.1831.1831.1761.2301.1461.0931.3431.1491.2191.1381.2461.0711.1501.114 19861.2051.2051.2061.2301.1491.1751.3611.1461.2421.1611.2891.1121.1801.153 19871.2451.2441.2701.2451.1551.2511.3991.2031.2691.1651.3221.1451.2051.205 19881.2821.2811.3121.2421.2021.1881.4561.1961.2971.1971.3421.1901.2801.258 19891.3211.3181.3651.2521.2241.2551.4881.2311.3381.2341.3691.2771.3261.307 19901.3431.3411.3911.2431.2591.2571.4791.2421.3591.2321.3791.3281.3531.339 19911.3341.3311.3871.2581.2981.2671.4831.2181.3491.2371.3591.3281.3351.341 19921.3321.3271.4161.2951.3251.2711.4991.1981.3461.2501.3671.3221.3181.339 19931.3571.3531.4461.3381.3231.3231.5531.2431.3691.2841.3941.3141.3321.398 19941.4101.4051.5061.4081.4121.3641.5871.2771.3941.3241.4461.3331.3681.470 19951.4441.4371.5641.4651.4591.4421.6471.3011.4301.3641.4801.3501.3991.516 19961.4941.4881.6041.5541.5451.5011.7151.3291.4561.3941.5241.3671.4291.567 19971.5341.5281.6661.6171.5741.5781.7851.3641.5001.4311.5711.4101.4661.612 19981.6141.6061.7591.6901.6461.6331.8851.4111.5681.5021.6601.4611.5411.691 19991.6991.6921.8341.7711.6951.7322.0021.4761.6501.5661.7641.5421.6291.785 20001.8171.8091.9661.8451.8021.8242.1471.5601.7751.6371.9121.6691.7491.930 20011.9601.9542.0851.9031.8731.9002.3101.6301.8941.7172.0831.8321.9172.155 20022.1192.1132.236n.a.n.a.n.a.n.a.n.a.n.a.n.a.n.a.n.a.n.a.n.a.Note: 2002 values are preliminary. District 1 (Bay, Escambia, Holmes, Okaloosa, Santa Rosa, Walton, and Washington Cos.), Dist rict 2 (Calhoun, Franklin, Gadsden, Gulf, Jackson, Jefferson, Leon, Liberty, and Wakulla Cos.), District 3 (Alachua, Bradford, Columbia, Dixie, Gilchrist, Hamilton, Laf ayette, Madison, Suwannee, Taylor, and Union Cos.), District 4 (Baker, Clay, [adeq. data not avail. for Duval], Nassau, Putnam, and St. Johns Cos.), District 5 (Citus, Le vy, Marion, and Sumter Cos.), District 6 (Brevard, Flagler, Lake, Orange, Osceola, Seminole, and Volusia Cos.), District 7 (De Soto, Hardee, Highlands, Okeechobee, and Polk Cos. ), District 8 (Hernando, Hillsborough, Manatee, Pasco, Pinellas, and Sarasota Cos.), District 9 (Charlotte, Collier, Glades, Hendry, and Lee Cos.), District 10 (Ind ian River, Martin, Palm Beach, and St. Lucie Cos.), and District 11 (Broward, Dade, and Monroe Cos.)

PAGE 73

67 T able 5.4 Annual House Price Appreciation (%) for Florida Districts (1981-2001)AllAllNonDist.Dist.Dist.Dist.Dist.Dist.Dist.Dist.Dist.Dist.Dist. FL MSA MSA 1234567891011 19817.257.384.706.937.41-0.6714.086.146.607.269.967.698.456.56 19822.422.373.545.161.632.644.475.561.940.372.68-0.861.152.39 19832.782.812.092.273.287.473.17-2.614.712.664.18-0.692.690.87 19842.712.585.364.181.944.495.605.454.282.433.661.040.980.54 19851.992.050.852.68-0.28-4.493.40-0.172.770.522.20-0.031.060.70 19861.891.862.570.020.267.431.34-0.201.862.003.473.862.653.44 19873.293.195.281.190.516.532.844.932.170.362.502.932.134.51 19883.023.013.33-0.234.10-5.074.09-0.592.172.751.573.996.164.40 19892.972.924.010.761.785.612.192.903.183.091.977.263.603.93 19901.741.731.92-0.652.880.14-0.620.961.58-0.130.734.042.112.47 1991-0.69-0.72-0.261.173.120.820.26-1.96-0.740.40-1.410.00-1.350.10 1992-0.18-0.302.092.972.090.301.09-1.66-0.190.990.56-0.48-1.27-0.11 19931.921.912.123.31-0.154.143.623.811.692.741.96-0.631.024.43 19943.883.874.135.206.723.092.172.691.793.123.751.472.745.14 19952.382.303.834.043.295.683.811.872.613.022.381.312.223.09 19963.493.542.586.075.904.124.132.171.842.202.921.242.163.38 19972.712.643.864.081.895.134.062.662.982.683.123.162.572.84 19985.175.155.584.534.553.465.613.404.544.945.673.625.144.90 19995.255.314.234.812.986.076.224.605.224.276.275.545.695.60 20006.966.947.244.176.365.337.235.747.614.538.368.227.368.12 20017.897.996.023.123.924.177.604.486.664.918.959.769.6611.65 20028.118.167.25 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a n.a. n.a.Note: 2002 values are preliminary. T able 5.5 Correlation of Annual Appreciation Rates between Districts (1981-2001)AllAllNonDist.Dist.Dist.Dist.Dist.Dist.Dist.Dist.Dist.Dist.Dist. FL MSA MSA 1234567891011 Florida1.00 All MSAs1.001.00 Non-MSA0.800.781.00 Dist.-10.470.470.371.00 Dist.-20.590.590.390.511.00 Dist.-30.170.160.370.12-0.091.00 Dist.-40.810.810.600.660.51-0.041.00 Dist.-50.670.660.770.560.220.270.651.00 Dist.-60.900.900.750.400.430.240.800.581.00 Dist.-70.820.820.620.530.620.150.830.470.781.00 Dist.-80.950.950.740.540.530.220.870.620.930.851.00 Dist.-90.780.780.65-0.010.410.110.530.470.700.650.691.00 Dist.-100.930.930.690.220.550.030.740.480.840.810.860.871.00 Dist.-110.880.880.710.230.450.180.590.590.680.690.770.810.881.00

PAGE 74

68The State of Florida'sHousing 2003 inflation-adjusted appreciation = (1+apprecation rate) (1+inflation rate) -1 [ ]of rapid growth and slow growth in house prices relative to the other Florida MSAs. Only the Sarasota-Bradenton and Ocala MSAs were ranked in all periods to be in the top 10 (of 20) and bottom 10, respectively. H ouse price indices are reported for each of the 20 MSAs, as well as the state, all MSAs, and all non-MSA areas in Table 5.7.5 Annual rates of appreciation from 1981 to 2001, constructed from the indices listed in Table 5.7, are listed in T able 5.8 for all MSAs in Florida. Table 5.9 lists the correlation coefficients estimated using the 21-year appreciation rates in Table 5.8. As with the District estimates, a strong correlation in the movements of house prices is seen in the central part of the state among the MSAs in central and northeast Florida. It is interesting to note that although the O cala MSA is located among these MSAs, the house price appreciation in Ocala appears to be fairly independent of the underlying conditions affecting the other MSAs. In addition, house price movements in the MSAs in the southern areas (i.e., Miami, Ft. Lauderdale, and W est Palm Beach) of the state are highly correlated, as are the Ft. Pierce, Naples, and Ft. Myers areas. T able 5.9 gives further evidence that, with some exceptions, the state's housing market can be broadly described in terms of three general marketsnorthwest, central and south.5.5 County-Level Measures of House Price Appreciation in FloridaEstimates of house price appreciation for the 1996 to 2001 period are reported for all Florida counties, listed by district, in Table 5.10. Estimates are reported for all counties having sufficient transaction information. In some districts, the small counties are grouped to provide more reliable estimates. D uring the 1996 to 2001 period, annual house price appreciation rates exceeded 6.0 percent in six counties (areas): Monroe (8.36 percent), St. Johns (7.40 percent), Collier (6.84 percent), Pi nellas (6.54 percent), the smaller counties of District 2 (6.52 percent) and D ade (6.42 percent). In contrast, five areas experienced average annual appreciation rates of less than 3.75 percent over this same period: the small counties in District 7 (3.18 percent), Citrus (3.32 percent), the small counties of Districts 4 and 5 (3.52 percent each) and Hernando (3.55 percent). R elative to other large urban counties, Pinellas and Dade experienced rapid increases in house prices of 6.54, and 6.42 percent per year, respectively. Table 5.11 reports the estimates of annual house price appreciation for the state and county areas for each year from 1996 through 2001.5.6 Forecasts of Stateand MSA-Level House Price ChangesChanges in population, real income, mortgage interest rates, housing starts, and price changes in previous periods are shown in this section to affect MSA house price levels. The effects of these selected explanatory variables on inflation-adjusted house price appreciation are displayed in Table 5.12. N ote the inflation-adjusted price appreciation is calculated as: The effects of the explanatory v ariables on inflation-adjusted house price appreciation is estimated using a fixed-effects" regression model that incorporates the time-series, crosssectional, nature of the data such that 5 Note that the estimated appreciation rates for the Jacksonville MSA include primarily Clay, Nassau, and St. Johns counties. They do not substantially include Duval County, due to the limited data available.

PAGE 75

69 where: a = estimated vector of coefficients corresponding to each MSA b = estimated regression coefficient e = estimation error X = vector of independent economic and demographic v ariables The reported figures are the estimated regression coefficients.6 Tstatistics, which measure the statistical significance of the explanatory v ariables, are reported in parentheses. The first column of Table 5.12 contains results for the 1981 to 2001 time period using only the six largest F lorida MSAs: Ft. Lauderdale, J acksonville, Miami, Orlando, TampaSt Petersburg, and West Palm Beach. This sample contains 124 observations. 6 The fixed-effects estimation procedure is equivalent to using ordinary least squares with (indicator) variables to capture the effects of being located in a particular MSA. The model dummy assumes, effectively, that the effect of the explanatory variables on house prices appreciation is the same in all MSAs. Unexplained variation in appreciation, presumably due to omitted explanatory variables, is not assumed to be constant across MSAs, and is captured in intercept terms that vary across the MSAs. These MSA intercept terms are not reported here, but are available upon request.inflation-adjusted house price appreciation = a + b X + eNotes: Estimates for 2002 are preliminary. Shaded areas denote top quartile ranking. Pensacola MSA (Escambia and Santa Rosa Cos.), Ft. Walton Beach MSA (Okaloosa Co.); Panama City MSA (Bay County), Tallahassee MSA (Leon and Gadsden Cos.), Gainesville MSA (Alachua Co.[adeq data not avail all periods]), Jacksonville MSA (Clay, [adeq. data not avail. for Duval], Nassau, and St. Johns Cos.), Ocala MSA (Marion Co.), Daytona Beach MSA (Flagler and Volusia Cos.), Orlando MSA (Lake, Orange, Osceola, and Seminole Cos.), Melbourne-Titusville MSA (Brevard Co.), Lakeland MSA (Polk Co.), Tampa-St.Petersburg MSA (Hernando, Hillsborough, Pasco, and Pinellas Cos.), Sarasota-Bradenton MSA (Manatee and Sarasota Cos.), Punta Gorda MSA (Charlotte Co.), Ft. Myers-Cape Coral MSA (Lee Co.), Naples MSA (Collier Co.), Ft. Pierce-Port St. Lucie MSA (Martin and St. Lucie Cos.), West Palm Beach-Boca Raton MSA (Palm Beach Co.), Ft. Lauderdale MSA (Broward Co.), and Miami MSA (Dade Co.) T able 5.6 Average Annual Percentage Appreciation and Period Rankings By MSA For Selected Periods (19812002)Metropolitan Statistical Area1981-851986-901991-951996-002001-02 (rank)(rank)(rank)(rank)(rank) Florida (All MSAs)3.442.541.414.728.08 Pensacola MSA (Dist. 1)4.20 (6)0.09 (18)2.91 (5)5.09 (5)2.17 (20) Ft. Walton Beach MSA (Dist. 1)4.67 (3)-0.04 (19)3.72 (2)4.49 (10)3.27 (19) Panama City MSA (Dist. 1)3.01 (11)0.92 (17)3.82 (1)4.04 (16)7.90 (9) T allahassee MSA (Dist. 2)2.81 (12)2.07 (11)2.46 (6)3.90 (18)7.02 (13) Gainesville MSA (Dist. 3) n.a. n.a.3.18 (4)5.04 (6)5.28 (16) Jacksonville MSA (Dist. 4)7.38 (1)1.81 (13)2.02 (9)5.60 (2)7.54 (12) Ocala MSA (Dist. 5)2.63 (14)1.11 (16)1.42 (11)4.09 (14)4.51 (18) Daytona Beach MSA (Dist. 6)3.35 (7)2.88 (8)1.36 (12)4.10 (13)7.60 (11) Orlando MSA (Dist. 6)4.66 (4)2.35 (10)1.03 (14)4.88 (8)6.18 (15) Melbourne-Titusville MSA (Dist. 6)3.05 (9)1.20 (15)0.76 (17)3.31 (19)6.65 (14) Lakeland MSA (Dist. 7)3.15 (8)1.48 (14)2.06 (8)4.09 (14)4.67 (17) T ampa-St.Pete. MSA (Dist. 8)4.76 (2)1.90 (12)1.33 (13)5.33 (3)7.75 (10) Sarasota-Bradenton MSA (Dist. 8)3.05 (9)2.84 (9)2.10 (7)4.93 (7)8.88 (5) Punta Gorda MSA (Dist. 9)0.58 (19)4.83 (2)-0.94 (20)4.36 (11)8.66 (6) Ft. Myers MSA (Dist. 9)2.03 (17)4.14 (3)1.01 (15)3.94 (17)8.54 (7) Naples MSA (Dist. 9)4.51 (5)5.90 (1)0.81 (16)5.90 (1)11.52 (2) Ft. Pierce MSA (Distr. 10)2.30 (15)3.20 (7)-0.55 (19)3.28 (20)8.54 (7) W est Palm Beach MSA (Dist. 10)2.69 (13)3.40 (5)0.54 (18)4.78 (9)10.54 (4) Ft. Lauderdale MSA (Dist. 11)1.89 (18)3.30 (6)1.85 (10)4.29 (12)11.87 (1) Miami MSA (Dist. 11)2.15 (16)3.79 (4)3.64 (3)5.32 (4)10.68 (3)

PAGE 76

70The State of Florida'sHousing 2003 AllAllNonMSAMSAMSAMSAMSAMSAMSAMSA FL MSA MSA 12345678 FlorPensFt.WPanaTallGainJackOcalDayt 19801.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.000 n.a.1.0001.0001.000 19811.0721.0741.0471.0781.0631.0301.073 n.a.1.1821.0381.076 19821.0981.0991.0841.1241.1301.0521.113 n.a.1.2501.1191.067 19831.1291.1301.1071.1251.2041.1041.139 n.a.1.2701.0561.109 19841.1601.1591.1661.1691.2221.1941.147 n.a.1.3541.1231.151 19851.1831.1831.1761.2271.2551.1561.147 n.a.1.4181.1331.177 19861.2051.2051.2061.2161.2301.2141.142 n.a.1.4121.1041.220 19871.2451.2441.2701.2231.2761.2181.149 n.a.1.4651.1761.261 19881.2821.2811.3121.2091.2831.2251.201 n.a.1.5151.1651.293 19891.3211.3181.3651.2301.2831.2141.226 n.a.1.5531.1871.332 19901.3431.3411.3911.2321.2501.2081.2691.3431.5501.1941.356 19911.3341.3311.3871.2101.3051.2571.2871.3901.5361.1901.360 19921.3321.3271.4161.2531.3281.3091.3181.3921.5521.1671.366 19931.3571.3531.4461.2921.3911.3381.3181.4471.6151.2241.402 19941.4101.4051.5061.3581.4881.3821.3841.4961.6481.2591.411 19951.4441.4371.5641.4201.5001.4571.4321.5701.7121.2801.451 19961.4941.4881.6041.5021.6211.5321.5201.6591.7781.3351.461 19971.5341.5281.6661.5671.6861.5821.5371.7411.8581.3701.502 19981.6141.6061.7591.6501.7151.6781.5941.7881.9591.4131.567 19991.6991.6921.8341.7381.7621.7771.6411.8932.0981.4851.640 20001.8171.8091.9661.8201.8651.7741.7322.0082.2471.5631.772 20011.9601.9542.0851.8511.9151.9271.8062.1132.4261.6341.909 20022.1192.1132.236 n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a Note: 2002 values are preliminary. T able 5.7 Annual House Price Indices for Florida Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs)

PAGE 77

71 MSAMSAMSAMSAMSAMSAMSAMSAMSAMSAMSAMSA 9101 1121314151617181920 OrlaMelbLakeTampSaraPuntFt.MNaplFt.PWPBFt.LMiam 1.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.0001.000 1.0691.0451.0761.1061.0671.0451.1021.2171.1081.0811.0321.098 1.1001.0711.0841.1361.0861.0561.0801.1691.1311.0931.0791.101 1.1631.0971.1291.1871.1071.0211.0811.2591.1681.1141.0881.107 1.2191.1281.1431.2321.1421.0211.1011.1991.0911.1281.0941.110 1.2551.1621.1661.2591.1611.0281.1011.2221.1121.1401.0981.109 1.2691.1831.1871.3051.1881.0631.1431.2911.1431.1711.1391.141 1.3011.1861.1931.3381.2161.1061.1731.3541.1801.1951.1881.186 1.3351.2001.2261.3581.2501.1321.2241.3821.2441.2711.2301.244 1.3781.2361.2621.3791.3001.2401.3001.5331.2831.3071.2681.297 1.4091.2331.2541.3831.3351.2991.3481.6241.3021.3461.2911.335 1.4041.2021.2661.3581.3441.2661.3661.5961.2931.3151.2821.354 1.3871.2241.2651.3661.3491.2271.3711.6201.2621.2931.2901.331 1.4161.2261.3011.3881.3991.2441.3631.5771.2281.3161.3391.410 1.4441.2491.3491.4431.4401.2581.3771.6681.2651.3511.3691.541 1.4821.2801.3881.4761.4811.2381.4171.6871.2651.3811.4141.591 1.5181.2921.4271.5161.5331.2741.4211.7161.2691.4101.4461.666 1.5661.3281.4641.5641.5841.3021.4721.7891.3171.4471.4751.715 1.6461.3621.5391.6541.6641.3351.5211.9001.3531.5231.5371.789 1.7391.4221.6231.7611.7541.4191.5902.0311.4021.6191.6061.908 1.8791.5051.6961.9121.8831.5311.7172.2431.4851.7431.7422.061 2.0021.5991.7752.0802.0681.6841.8722.5021.6271.9261.9482.306 n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a (1980-2001)

PAGE 78

72The State of Florida'sHousing 2003 AllAllNonMSAMSAMSAMSAMSAMSA FL MSA MSA 1 23456 FlorPensFt.WPanaTallGainJack 19817.257.384.707.826.273.017.26 n.a.18.20 19822.422.373.544.226.292.113.77 n.a.5.78 19832.782.812.090.086.604.992.37 n.a.1.61 19842.712.585.363.911.528.130.66 n.a.6.55 19851.992.050.854.962.65-3.22-0.03 n.a.4.77 19861.891.862.57-0.88-1.955.07-0.42 n.a.-0.42 19873.293.195.280.593.690.300.61 n.a.3.76 19883.023.013.33-1.170.570.614.57 n.a.3.36 19892.972.924.011.73-0.02-0.972.02 n.a.2.53 19901.741.731.920.17-2.51-0.433.54 n.a.-0.18 1991-0.69-0.72-0.26-1.764.334.021.423.46-0.89 1992-0.18-0.302.093.551.784.112.350.151.03 19931.921.912.123.094.752.270.023.924.02 19943.883.874.135.146.973.305.023.402.09 19952.382.303.834.550.805.383.474.983.85 19963.493.542.585.808.125.166.175.643.85 19972.712.643.864.314.003.241.064.954.52 19985.175.155.585.321.746.073.742.725.42 19995.255.314.235.342.715.942.935.887.11 20006.966.947.244.685.87-0.195.586.047.09 20017.897.996.021.722.698.654.275.237.97 20028.118.167.25 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Note: 2002 values are preliminary. T able 5.8 Annual House Price Appreciation (%) for Florida Metropolitan AllAllNonMSAMSAMSAMSAMSAMSA FL MSA MSA 123456 FlorPensFt.WPanaTallGainJack Flor1.00MSA1.001.00Non0.800.781.00Pens0.460.460.381.00Ft.W0.270.270.090.451.00Pana0.200.190.230.100.071.00T all0.600.610.390.440.410.091.00Gain0.600.600.410.210.320.000.331.00Jack0.750.750.550.670.350.120.500.641.00Ocal0.450.440.580.520.310.050.200.780.51Dayt0.820.820.670.19-0.020.180.260.530.64Orla0.880.880.710.390.260.160.430.690.70Melb0.790.790.700.520.110.180.360.420.65Lake0.800.800.470.500.360.260.520.610.71T amp0.930.930.730.520.300.300.520.520.80Sara0.930.930.730.350.120.260.490.610.66Punt0.690.690.590.09-0.17-0.140.280.670.36Ft.M.0.730.730.600.10-0.200.050.430.520.57Napl0.710.710.420.210.06-0.070.500.390.55Ft.P.0.730.740.400.100.16-0.130.540.540.53W.P.0.930.930.700.230.010.140.550.600.64Ft.L0.760.760.710.090.040.180.350.500.38Miam0.820.820.570.260.240.150.570.590.52 T able 5.9 Correlation of Annual Appreciation Rates between MSAs (1981-2001)

PAGE 79

73 MSAMSAMSAMSAMSAMSAMSAMSAMSAMSAMSAMSAMSAMSA 7 89101 1121314151617181920 OcalDaytOrlaMelbLakeTampSaraPuntFt.MNaplFt.PWPBFt.LMiam 3.757.656.864.497.6310.566.724.4810.1921.6710.848.113.259.75 7.83-0.872.912.510.672.781.751.04-1.99-3.952.011.074.510.33 -5.563.965.792.424.234.431.98-3.310.067.753.281.960.800.51 6.253.724.802.801.193.853.110.061.90-4.80-6.581.260.590.26 0.912.302.923.052.022.201.670.610.001.911.971.030.32-0.09 -2.563.671.171.761.773.602.373.463.805.652.792.713.742.89 6.563.322.520.290.502.542.344.062.624.913.172.054.303.97 -0.932.522.601.162.801.512.772.354.372.115.446.383.594.90 1.893.093.193.022.971.533.979.526.2310.883.102.893.054.22 0.581.802.25-0.24-0.640.312.754.763.685.931.482.961.792.97 -0.300.26-0.32-2.540.92-1.820.65-2.521.32-1.70-0.66-2.31-0.671.38 -1.930.48-1.221.85-0.080.600.34-3.070.401.47-2.43-1.680.64-1.63 4.832.612.050.152.891.623.741.34-0.61-2.66-2.701.753.755.92 2.900.622.011.863.653.922.931.131.025.773.042.672.329.29 1.632.842.602.492.922.322.81-1.572.901.180.002.273.223.24 4.350.712.430.942.772.733.572.910.241.730.332.092.274.68 2.592.803.192.792.613.113.302.223.614.253.782.601.992.98 3.124.315.102.595.115.815.052.493.316.182.735.254.264.30 5.134.695.634.405.496.465.406.294.546.903.596.334.496.63 5.268.008.075.834.478.567.357.898.0210.465.977.628.438.03 4.517.736.556.224.678.809.829.989.0311.529.5110.5411.8711.90 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Statistical Areas (MSAs) (1981-2001) MSAMSAMSAMSAMSAMSAMSAMSAMSAMSAMSAMSAMSAMSA 7891011121314151617181920 OcalDaytOrlaMelbLakeTampSaraPuntFt.MNaplFt.PW.P.Ft.LMiam1.00 0.151.00 0.340.841.00 0.280.730.781.00 0.120.700.740.641.00 0.330.850.870.840.821.00 0.430.840.800.750.720.841.00 0.430.590.520.540.360.510.771.00 0.120.840.610.600.580.680.790.731.00 -0.080.720.580.550.690.710.640.580.821.00 0.020.610.560.540.640.670.640.590.730.831.00 0.270.820.790.730.730.830.910.740.810.700.791.00 0.430.640.580.640.420.650.830.730.590.400.600.801.00 0.370.620.540.470.690.680.840.680.690.640.680.820.711.00

PAGE 80

74The State of Florida'sHousing 2003 The estimated regression coefficient on the change in population is 0.448. This means that a 1-percent increase in this population group in the urban areas is associated with a 0.448 increase in the inflation-adjusted price of single-family housing. The estimated coefficient on changes in real per capita income of 0.398 also indicates a positive r elationship to percentage changes in real house prices. As expected, the level of the nominal mortgage rate is negatively associated with price changes. The coefficient can be interpreted as an increase of 1 percent in the rate results in a reduction of the inflation-adjusted house price of 0.5 percent. The estimated coefficient on housing starts is negative, suggesting that substantial new housing supply slows house price appreciation. Finally, changes in real house prices in the previous year are highly correlated with current changes. In all cases the coefficient signs are found to be consistent with expectations and statistically significant. The second column of Table 5.12 contains the results for the 1981 to 2001 period using data for all 20 MSAs. This sample contains 405 observations.7R elative to the regression using just the six largest MSAs, the effects of the economic variables retain their estimated signs and, generally, their magnitudes. It is noted that house price movements are more sensitive to percentage changes in population and housing starts in larger urban areas. This appears to be r easonable because large percentage changes population and starts are not easily achieved in the more populous urban areas. T aken together, the results of Table 5.12 are robust. Increases in the number of individuals in their prime buying years and increases in inflation-adjusted per capita income have a significantly consistent positive effect on inflationadjusted house prices. Increases in the level of mortgage interest rates and housing starts have a consistent negative effect on appreciation. In addition, house price changes are persistent. These r egression results are consistent with findings in the housing research literature. The relative strength and stability of the estimated coefficients, along with the explanatory power of the model, suggest that it can be used to project reasonable estimates of future house prices. The historical regression analyses are used to forecast the average annual rates of price appreciation for each MSA over the 2001 to 2010 period. For comparison, the forecasts are reported along with the average annual appreciation rates for the previous 10y ear periods in Table 5.13. The economic data required for the forecasts comes from the Fl orida Long-Term E conomic Forecast, 2001 by the Bureau of Business and Economic Research (BEBR) at the University of Florida. The Bu r eau's estimates of expected population, real per capita income, and housing starts are employed in our appreciation forecasts. Mortgage rates are assumed to average their 1996 to 2001 average level of approximately 7.50 percent for the 5-year period. To report nominal appreciation, annual inflation during the 2001 to 2010 period is assumed to be 2.50 percent (again, the average annual rate from 1996 to 2001). It is important to note that forecasting r equires the assumption that the historical relations between inflationadjusted price appreciation and the explanatory variables such as population, inflation-adjusted per capita income, housing starts, mortgage rates, and past appreciation continue into the future. Certainly, this may be only a rough approximation of the effect these v ariables will actually have going forward. In addition, the appreciation estimates are based on the BEBR's underlying forecast of the respective economic variables, as well as the assumption that average interest rates 7 Observations were not available for all years for all MSAs (see Table 5.7).

PAGE 81

75 and general inflation will be consistent with the past 5-year period. Av erage house price appreciation rates for the state of Florida, reported in Table 5.13, are estimated to be 4.97 percent per year (i.e., 2.47 percent above expected inflation). In general, the highest annual appreciation rates are forecast for the southern portions of the state (e.g., M iami, 7.49%; Ft. Lauderdale, 6.84%; and West Palm Beach, 6.27% per year). O ther MSAs that are forecast to experience higher than average rates are T ampa (6.04% per year) and Jacksonville (6.07% per year). With the exception of Panama City, lower than average house price increases are forecast in the northwestern portion of the state, (e.g., P ensacola, Ft. Walton Beach, and T allahassee). The forecasted relative annual appreciation ranking among the six largest MSAs is Miami (7.49%); Ft. Lauderdale (6.84%); West Palm Beach (6.27%); Jacksonville (6.07%); T ampa-St. Petersburg (6.04%); and O rlando (5.23% per year)all projected to increase at rates higher than the state's average. Notes: Multi-county estimates may vary from MSA estimates due to small sample estimation error. Shaded areas denote top quarti le return. Flagler, and Duval Cos. not estimated due to insufficient data. District 1 small cos. are Holmes, Walton, and Washington. District 2 small cos. are Calhoun, Franklin, Gadsden, Gulf, Jackson, Jefferson, Liberty, and Wakulla. District 3 small cos. are Bradford, Columbia, Dixie, Gilchrist, Hamil ton, Lafayette, Madison, Suwannee, Taylor, and Union. District 4 small cos. are Baker and Putnam. District 5 small cos. are Levy and Sumter. District 7 small cos. are De Soto, Hardee, Highlands, Okeechobee. District 9 small cos, are Glades and Hendry.T able 5.10 Average Annual Percentage Appreciation and Period Rankings By County (19962001)County1996-County199620012001 Florida (All Counties) 5.24Osceola Co. (Dist. 6, Orlando MSA) 4.40 Florida (All MSAs) 5.26Seminole Co. (Dist. 6, Orlando MSA) 5.30 Florida (All non-MSA Counties) 4.92Brevard Co. (Dist. 6, Melbourne MSA) 3.80 Escambia Co. (Dist. 1, Pensacola MSA) 4.82Polk Co. (Dist. 7, Lakeland MSA) 4.19 Santa Rosa Co. (Dist. 1, Pensacola MSA) 3.84District 7 Small Counties (Dist. 7) 3.18 Okaloosa Co. (Dist. 1, Ft. Walton Beach MSA) 4.19Hernando Co. (Dist. 8, Tampa-St.P. MSA) 3.55 Bay Co. (Dist. 1, Panama City MSA) 4.81Hillsborough Co. (Dist. 8, Tampa-St.Pete. MSA) 5.81 District 1 Small Counties (Dist. 1) 4.61Pasco Co. (Dist. 8, Tampa-St.Pete. MSA) 4.97 Leon Co. (Dist. 2, Tallahassee MSA) 3.97Pinellas Co. (Dist. 8, Tampa-St.Pete. MSA) 6.54 District 2 Small Counties (Dist. 2) 6.52Manatee Co. (Dist. 8, Sarasota MSA) 5.90 Alachua Co. (Dist. 3) 5.07Sarasota Co. (Dist. 8, Sarasota MSA) 5.68 District 3 Small Counties (Dist. 3) 3.89Charlotte Co. (Dist. 9, Punta Gorda MSA) 5.30 Clay Co. (Dist. 4, Jacksonville MSA) 4.44Lee Co. (Dist. 9, Ft. Myers MSA) 4.79 Duval Co. (Dist. 4, Jacksonville MSA) n.a.Collier Co. (Dist. 9, Naples MSA) 6.84 St. Johns Co. (Dist. 4, Jacksonville MSA) 7.40District 9 Small Counties (Dist. 9.) 4.74 District 4 Small Counties (Dist. 4) 3.52Indian River Co. (Dist. 10) 4.81 Citrus Co. (Dist. 5) 3.32Martin Co. (Dist. 10, Ft. Pierce MSA) 4.27 Marion Co. (Dist. 5, Ocala MSA) 4.16St. Lucie Co. (Dist. 10, Ft. Pierce MSA) 4.38 District 5 Small Counties (Dist. 5) 3.52Palm Beach Co. (Dist. 10, W. Palm Beach MSA)5.74 V olusia Co. (Dist. 6, Daytona MSA) 4.76Broward Co. (Dist. 11, Ft. Lauderdale MSA) 5.55 Lake Co. (Dist. 6, Orlando MSA) 4.49Dade Co. (Dist. 11, Miami MSA) 6.42 Orange Co. (Dist. 6, Orlando MSA) 5.34Monroe Co. (Dist. 11) 8.36

PAGE 82

76The State of Florida's Housing, 2003 County Key: FL: Florida (All Counties) Esca: Escambia (Dist.1) Sant: Santa Rosa (Dist. 1) Okal: Okaloosa (Dist. 1) Bay: Bay (Dist. 1) D1sm: District 1 Small Cos. Leon: Leon (Dist. 2) D2sm: District 2 Small Cos. Alac: Alachua (Dist. 3) D3sm: District 3 Small Cos. Clay: Clay (Dist. 4) Duva: Duval (Dist. 4) St.J: St. Johns (Dist. 4) Citr: Citrus (Dist. 5) Mari: Marion (Dist. 5) D5sm: District 5 Small Cos. V olu: Volusia (Dist. 6) Lake: Lake (Dist. 6) Oran: Orange (Dist. 6) Osce: Osceola (Dist. 6) T able 5.11 Annual House Price Appreciation (%) for Selected Counties (1996 2000)Y earFLEscaSantOkalBayD1smLeonD2smAlacD3sm 19963.495.437.378.125.160.095.285.575.641.21 19972.714.712.854.003.247.280.676.854.955.63 19985.175.704.351.746.074.763.929.242.724.98 19995.255.534.402.715.948.112.823.815.886.74 20006.964.006.995.87-0.197.645.369.136.043.39 20017.893.57-2.922.698.65-0.234.794.505.231.38 Y earSemiBrevPolkD7smHernHillPascPineManaSara 19961.900.942.770.660.742.482.822.995.342.67 19973.642.792.612.793.193.620.513.462.373.88 19985.362.595.114.462.846.274.785.944.625.23 19994.644.405.490.672.916.385.367.165.855.05 20009.775.834.474.745.928.057.299.977.637.41 20016.476.224.675.745.728.079.069.739.579.83 Notes: The six largest MSAs are Ft. Lauderdale, Jacksonville, Miami, Orlando, T ampa, and West Palm Beach. The figures reported are the estimated model coefficients, b, with their t-statistics in parentheses. Estimated model: House Price Appreciation = a + S bX, where b is the estimated coefficient, X the vector of explanatory variables, and a the vector of dummy variables for each of the respective MSAs. "*" indicates that the coefficient is statistically significant at the 95% confidence level. The house price appreciation equation is estimated using a "fixed-effects" model that incorporates the time-series, T able 5.12 Explaining Past Changes in Real SingleDemographic Variables (1981-2001) Explanatory Variable Pct. Annual Change in Population (Age 20-54) Pct. Annual Change in Inflation-Adjusted Per Capita Income Level of Nominal Mortgage Interest Rate Housing Starts in Previous Year as Pct. of Total Households House Price Appreciation in Previous Year No. of Observation

PAGE 83

77 Semi: Seminole (Dist. 6) Brev: Brevard (Dist. 6) Polk: Polk (Dist. 7) D7sm: District 7 Small Cos. Hern: Hernando (Dist. 8) Hill: Hillsborough (Dist. 8) Pasc: Pasco (Dist. 8) Pine: Pinellas (Dist. 8) Mana: Manatee (Dist. 8) Sara: Sarasota (Dist. 8) Char: Charlotte (Dist. 9) Lee: Lee (Dist. 9) Coll: Collier (Dist. 9) D9sm: District 9 Small Cos. Indi: Indian River (Dist. 10) Mart: Martin (Dist. 10) St.L: St.Lucie (Dist. 10) P .Bch: Palm Beach (Dist. 10) Brow: Broward (Dist. 11) Miam: Miami (Dist. 11) Monr. Monroe (Dist. 11) ClayDuvlSt.JD4smCitrMariD5smVoluLakeOranOsce 2.00n.a.6.93-0.24-0.824.35-0.240.791.053.042.84 4.69n.a.4.972.882.522.592.882.875.452.701.78 3.08n.a.6.813.504.063.123.504.424.385.233.75 6.77n.a.7.944.393.475.134.394.614.996.226.25 5.756.647.046.066.335.266.067.997.837.814.86 4.369.6310.694.544.364.514.547.883.277.026.94 CharLeeCollD9smIndiMartSt.LP.B.BrowMiamMonr 2.910.241.7311.765.05-0.811.162.092.274.685.29 2.223.614.25-3.611.013.703.752.601.992.985.10 2.493.316.183.055.943.931.915.254.264.308.93 6.294.546.909.875.063.883.516.334.496.635.28 7.898.0210.464.737.605.736.117.628.438.0311.65 9.989.0311.522.644.219.189.8210.5411.8711.9013.91 Family House Prices Using Economic and Six LargestAll MSAsMSAs 0.4480.274 (2.36)*(2.59)* 0.3980.399 (5.96)*(8.27)* -0.005-0.006 (-6.28)*(-9.63)* -0.955-0.469 (-3.39)*(-2.79)* 0.6090.354 (9.66)*(8.32)* 124405 cross-sectional, nature of the data. This estimation procedure is equivalent to using ordinary least squares with dummy (indicator) variables to capture the effects of being located in a particular MSA. The model assumes, effectively, that the effect of the explanatory variables on house price appreciation is the same in all MSAs. Unexplained variation in appreciation, presumably due to omitted explanatory variables, is not assumed to be constant across the MSAs, and is captured in intercept terms that vary across the MSAs. These MSA intercept terms are not reported here, but are available upon request.

PAGE 84

78The State of Florida'sHousing 2003 Notes: Shaded areas denote top quartile ranking. *Data from previous report. Pensacola MSA (Escambia and Santa Rosa Cos.), Ft Walton Beach MSA (Okaloosa Co.); Panama City MSA (Bay County), Tallahassee MSA (Leon and Gadsden Cos.), Gainesville MSA (Alachua Co.), Jacksonville MSA (Clay Nassau, and St. Johns Cos. [adeq. data not avail. for Duval]), Ocala MSA (Marion Co.), Daytona Beach MSA (Flagler and V olusia Cos.), Orlando MSA (Lake, Orange, Osceola, and Seminole Cos.), Melbourne-Titusville MSA (Brevard Co.), Lakeland MSA (Polk Co.), TampaSt.Petersburg MSA (Hernando, Hillsborough, Pasco, and Pinellas Cos.), Sarasota-Bradenton MSA (Manatee and Sarasota Cos.), Punta Gorda MSA (Ch arlotte Co.), Ft. Myers-Cape Coral MSA (Lee Co.), Naples MSA (Collier Co.), Ft. Pierce-Port St. Lucie MSA (Martin and St. Lucie Cos.), W est Palm BeachBoca Raton MSA (Palm Beach Co.), Ft. Lauderdale MSA (Broward Co.), and Miami MSA (Dade Co.). 2001-2010 forecast based on model estimates reported in Table 5.13 using projected economic and demographic data from the Bureau of Economic and Business Researc h at the University of Florida. T able 5.13 Average Annual Percentage Appreciation and Period Rankings By MSA T en-Year Periods (197100) with Ten-Year Projection (2000-10)Metropolitan Statistical Area1971-801981-90(1991-002001-10 (rank)(rank)(rank)(rank) Florida (All MSAs)9.522.993.074.97 Pensacola MSA (Dist. 1)n.a.2.14 (16)4.00 (4)3.46 (19) Ft. Walton Beach MSA (Dist. 1)n.a.2.31 (15)4.11 (2)3.82 (17) Panama City MSA (Dist. 1)n.a.1.96 (18)3.93 (5)5.30 (6) T allahassee MSA (Dist. 2)n.a.2.44 (13)3.18 (10)4.58 (12) Gainesville MSA (Dist. 3)n.a.n.a.4.11 (2)4.44 (13) Jacksonville MSA (Dist. 4)8.34 (6)*4.60 (2)3.81 (6)6.07 (4) Ocala MSA (Dist. 5)n.a.1.87 (19)2.76 (14)3.34 (20) Daytona Beach MSA (Dist. 6)n.a.3.12 (5)2.73 (15)4.85 (11) Orlando MSA (Dist. 6)9.82 (3)3.50 (3)2.95 (13)5.23 (7) Melbourne-Titusville MSA (Dist. 6)n.a.2.13 (17)2.04 (18)4.44 (13) Lakeland MSA (Dist. 7)n.a.2.32 (14)3.07 (11)3.57 (18) T ampa-St.Pete. MSA (Dist. 8)8.76 (5)3.33 (4)3.33 (9)6.04 (5) Sarasota-Bradenton MSA (Dist. 8)n.a.2.94 (9)3.51 (7)5.10 (8) Punta Gorda MSA (Dist. 9)n.a.2.70 (11)1.71 (19)4.97 (9) Ft. Myers MSA (Dist. 9)n.a.3.09 (6)2.48 (17)4.89 (10) Naples MSA (Dist. 9)n.a.5.20 (1)3.36 (8)4.27 (16) Ft. Pierce MSA (Distr. 10)n.a.2.75 (10)1.37 (20)4.42 (15) W est Palm Beach MSA (Dist. 10)10.18 (1)3.04 (7)2.66 (16)6.27 (3) Ft. Lauderdale MSA (Dist. 11)9.89 (2)2.59 (12)3.07 (11)6.84 (2) Miami MSA (Dist. 11)9.73 (4)2.97 (8)4.48 (1)7.49 (1)

PAGE 85

79 T able 5.14 District, MSA and Counties listed by District Location (Northwest Florida to Southeast Florida)DistrictMSACountyDistrict 1: West FloridaPanama CityBay District 1: West FloridaPensacolaEscambia District 1: West FloridaPensacolaSanta Rosa District 1: West FloridaFt. Walton BeachOkaloosa District 1: West FloridaNon-MSA countyHolmes District 1: West FloridaNon-MSA countyWalton District 1: West FloridaNon-MSA countyWashington District 2: ApalacheeTallahasseeGadsden District 2: ApalacheeTallahasseeLeon District 2: ApalacheeNon-MSA countyCalhoun District 2: ApalacheeNon-MSA countyFranklin District 2: ApalacheeNon-MSA countyGulf District 2: ApalacheeNon-MSA countyJackson District 2: ApalacheeNon-MSA countyJefferson District 2: ApalacheeNon-MSA countyLiberty District 2: ApalacheeNon-MSA countyWakulla District 3: N. Central FloridaGainesvilleAlachua District 3: N. Central FloridaNon-MSA countyBradford District 3: N. Central FloridaNon-MSA countyColumbia District 3: N. Central FloridaNon-MSA countyDixie District 3: N. Central FloridaNon-MSA countyGilchrist District 3: N. Central FloridaNon-MSA countyHamilton District 3: N. Central FloridaNon-MSA countyLafayette District 3: N. Central FloridaNon-MSA countyMadison District 3: N. Central FloridaNon-MSA countySuwannee District 3: N. Central FloridaNon-MSA countyTaylor District 3: N. Central FloridaNon-MSA countyUnion District 4: Northeast FloridaJacksonvilleClay District 4: Northeast FloridaJacksonvilleDuval District 4: Northeast FloridaJacksonvilleNassau District 4: Northeast FloridaJacksonvilleSt. Johns District 4: Northeast FloridaNon-MSA countyBaker District 4: Northeast FloridaNon-MSA countyPutnam District 5: WithlacoocheeOcalaMarion District 5: WithlacoocheeNon-MSA countyCitrus District 5: WithlacoocheeNon-MSA countyLevy District 5: WithlacoocheeNon-MSA countySumter District 6: E. Central FloridaMelbourneBrevard District 6: E. Central FloridaDaytona BeachFlagler District 6: E. Central FloridaDaytona BeachVolusia District 6: E. Central FloridaOrlandoLake District 6: E. Central FloridaOrlandoOrange District 6: E. Central FloridaOrlandoOsceola District 6: E. Central FloridaOrlandoSeminole District 7: Central FloridaLakelandPolk District 7: Central FloridaNon-MSA countyDe Soto District 7: Central FloridaNon-MSA countyHardee District 7: Central FloridaNon-MSA countyHighlands District 7: Central FloridaNon-MSA countyOkeechobee District 8: Tampa BayTampa St. PetersburgHernando District 8: Tampa BayTampa St. PetersburgHillsborough District 8: Tampa BayTampa St. PetersburgPasco District 8: Tampa BayTampa St. PetersburgPinellas District 8: Tampa BaySarasota BradentonManatee District 8: Tampa BaySarasota BradentonSarasota District 9: Southwest FloridaPunta GordaCharlotte District 9: Southwest FloridaNaplesCollier District 9: Southwest FloridaFt. MyersLee District 9: Southwest FloridaNon-MSA countyGlades District 9: Southwest FloridaNon-MSA countyHendry District 10: Treasure CoastFt. Pierce Port St. LucieMartin District 10: Treasure CoastFt. Pierce Port St. LucieSt. Lucie District 10: Treasure CoastWest Palm BeachPalm Beach District 10: Treasure CoastNon-MSA countyIndian River District 11: South FloridaFt. LauderdaleBroward District 11: South FloridaMiamiDade District 11: South FloridaNon-MSA countyMonroe

PAGE 86

80The State of Florida'sHousing 2003 6. ConclusionF lorida's 67 counties include 35 urban counties and the 32 rural counties. The urban counties can also be divided into those that are a part of the six major metropolitan areas and fifteen other metropolitan areas. Dividing the counties in this way is useful as a means to understand Florida's housing. There are also a number of differences in housing characteristics between coastal and non-coastal counties. These housing differences reflect the differences in the characteristics of the population in different areas of the state. The population of the state is growing, but not uniformly. D ifferent areas of the state are also characterized by differences in the distribution of households by age, income, race, ethnicity, and county of origin. Si ngle-family housing units dominate the state, but condominiums are an important source of housing in some coastal counties and manufactured housing plays a key role in rural counties in the interior of the state. Relative to other areas of the country, housing prices in Florida are low. Appreciation rates for single-family housing differ across the state but have increased in recent years in most areas. Indices of affordability show that on average the affordability of housing increased throughout the 1990s, but declined in 2001. However, the affordability index masks problems that households with incomes below the median income have in obtaining suitable housing without paying more than 30 percent of income toward housing costs. It is difficult to derive a single number of housing need, and the 30 percent of income standard may not be an appropriate criteria to define affordability. However, even if 50 percent is used as the standard, it is clear that there is a substantial need in Florida. The affordability calculations also indicate that the most severe needs are for households with incomes below 30 percent of median income. This is a group that is difficult to reach with state programs, but one that becomes even more vulnerable with changes in the federal public housing program. While housing affordability is a problem in Florida, substandard housing is less pervasive. In part, this is a r eflection of a relatively young housing stock in Florida that has been built in r esponse to the recent rapid growth of the state. There are, however, areas of older housing stock in the state that are in need of rehabilitation and the aging of the existing housing stock will lead to additional needs for rehabilitation in the coming years.

PAGE 88

S himberg Center for Affordable Housing U niversity of Florida P ost Office Box 115703 G ainesville, Florida 32611-5703 1-800-259-5705


PRIVATE ITEM
Digitization of this item is currently in progress.
State of Florida's Housing
ALL VOLUMES CITATION THUMBNAILS PDF VIEWER PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00087010/00008
 Material Information
Title: State of Florida's Housing
Physical Description: Serial
Language: English
Creator: Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing
Publisher: Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2003
Copyright Date: 2010
 Record Information
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UF00087010:00008

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

( PDF )


Full Text

THE STATE OF FLORIDA S
Housing
2003




...............................
...............................
...............................
...............................
...............................
...............................
...............................
...............................
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............





























































































































































































































































































































































































































































































...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............


. ... .........



App
............ ......... ................ ......... ........... .... ........
...................................................................... .................................. .....
............................................... ....................................... ...
...............................................................................................................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................................................................................................


.................................... .............. ...... ............ .................................


......................... ...........................
............................... ........................................ ........................................... .................................................
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................
................................... ..........................................................................................................................................................
..... .. ... ..... ...... ...................................
... .... ..



.... ........... ... iii:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::!::& .:b lli::
MKM) e 4 am
.. ..............................................................
............ .......................
.................................. ............................... ......................................... ..................... ....................................................................
............................................................................................................................
............................... ................................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................
.......................................... .........
... ........................................ .. .. .................... ................ ........ .............. ..... ............ ........................... ... ............ ............

... .. .... .. .
... .. .... .. .
........................................... ................
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................
................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................
....... ....... ..........................................................................................
.................... ................... ...... ..........
.... ......





W i ... .......
....................................................... ... ............
............... .........................................................................................................................................................................................
............................... ...............
............................................................................................................................................................................................
............................... ....

............... ............ d ............... .



AnI.MaY.N.M.Cmit.
........................................ .................. ..........................................
............................................ .................
.............................................................................................................................................................. ....
..........





















Douglas White
Florida Housing Data Clearinghouse
Shimberg Center
University of Florida

Janet Galvez
Shimberg Center
University of Florida

Dean Gatzlaff
Real Estate Center
Florida State University

Jim Martinez
Florida Housing Data Clearinghouse
Shimberg Center
University of Florida

Margaret Murray
Department of Urban and Regional Planning
Florida Atlantic University

Diep Nguyen
Florida Housing Data Clearinghouse
Shimberg Center
University of Florida

William O'Dell
Florida Housing Data Clearinghouse
Shimberg Center
University of Florida

Marc T Smith
Shimberg Center
University of Florida





Florida Housing Data Clearinghouse, Shimberg Center for Affordable
Housing, M. E. Rinker, Sr. School of Building Construction, College of
Design, Construction and Planning, University of Florida,
www.shimberg.ufl.edu/


Major funding for this report provided by the State of Florida



















Acknowledgement



One of the primary objectives of the Florida Housing Data Clearinghouse is to

provide state and local policy makers and program planners with a centralized
source for estimates of current housing supply. The Shimberg Center for
Affordable Housing wishes to acknowledge the continued support of the Florida
Housing Finance Corporation for the preparation of this report titled The State of

Florida's Housing, 2003. We also acknowledge the valuable input provided by the
members of the Clearinghouse Technical Advisory Committee. This group of

dedicated technical advisors represents a broad range of interests in Florida's
housing supply.


The databases and reports produced by the Florida Housing Data

Clearinghouse are publicly accessible on the Internet at www.shimberg.ufl.edu.
At the home page of the web site, select "Fla. Housing Data" to access all available

materials including county-specific data. We welcome comments to make the
report more valuable.




Robert C. Stroh, Jr., Ph. D.
Director, Shimberg Center
























Contents
1.0 Introduction ......................... ... ...................... ...................... 3
2.0 Population Change: Race/Ethnicity and Housing ..........................................................4
2.1 Introduction ........................... ................................ 4
2.2 Population ......................................................................... ............................. 5
2.3 Headship and Homeownership ..................................................... 5
2.4 Race/Ethnic Differences in Housing .................................................................. 11
2.5 Local Responses: Broward County.................... .............................. 12
2.6 Local Responses: Orlando MSA............................. ................................ 13
2.7 C conclusion ............................................ ............................................................... 13
Appendix 2.1 Using State and Local Area Census Data.........................................22
Appendix 2.2 Understanding Current Conditions ........................................................23
Appendix 2.3 Examining Change ................................... ...... ......................25
3.0 Florida's H housing Supply ............................................... ....................................... 27
3.1 D ata D description ........................................ ................................................. 27
3.2 Single-family Housing ................... ..........................................................29
3.3 C ondom inium s ........................................ ................................................... 42
3.4 Multifamily Housing .........................................................................52
3.5 Impact of Housing on the Florida Economy ......................................................53
3.6 Sum m ary ..................................................... .................................................. 53
4.0 Housing Prices and Affordability .............................. .....................................54
4.1 Introduction .............................................. .................................................... 54
4.2 Housing Affordability Index .............................. ..................................... 54
4.3 C ost Burden ................................ ....................................................................... 59
5.0 Florida House Price Trends: Market Comparisons and Forecasts .....................................61
5.1 Introduction ................................... ...... .... .. ............................. 61
5.2 Statewide Measures of Single-Family House Prices in Florida ..................................61
5.3 District-Level Measures of Single-Family House Price Appreciation in Florida...........64
5.4 MSA-Level Measures of Single-Family House Price Appreciation in Florida ..............65
5.5 County-Level Measures of House Price Appreciation in Florida...............................68
5.6 Forecasts of State- and MSA-Level House Price Changes .........................................68
6.0 C conclusion ....................................................... ..................................................... 80

Tables
2.1 Percentage Change in Total Population and Immigrant Population by County .............. 6-9
2.2 Broward County: Housing and Population ................................................................ 17
2.3 Pembrooke Pines Racial/Ethnic Housing Profile .................................................... 17
2.4 Pembrooke Pines: Selected Housing Data .................................................................. 18
2.5 Orange County: Selected Housing Characteristics .........................................................21
2.6 Orlando: Selected Current Housing Characteristics .........................................................21
2.7 Orlando: Selected Current Population Characteristics......................................................22
2.8 Orlando: Racial/Ethnic Housing Profile ...................................... ..........................23
2.9 Selected Current Population Characteristics by Race/Ethnicity ........................................23


The51









s ing



^^B{2003h^^


2.10 Selected Current Housing Characteristics .................................................... 24
2.11 Mirmar, Census Tract 1105: Changes in Housing ................................................ 25
2.12 Mirmar, Census Tract 1105: Population Change by Race/Ethnicity .................... 25
3.1 Single-family Housing Stock............................. ................................. 32-35
3.2 Condominium Housing Stock ............................ ......... ......................... 38-41
3.3 Multifamily Housing Stock with Two to Nine Units in Complex .................... 44-47
3.4 Multifamily Housing Stock with Ten or more Units in Complex ..................... 48-51
4.1 Affordability Index...................................................................... 57-58
4.2 Affordability Index Ranking 1999 .................................................. 59
4.3 C ost Burden ........................................ .............................................................. 60
5.1 Summary of Florida House Price Appreciation, ....................................................... 63
5.2 Average Annual Percentage Appreciation and Period Rankings by District .............. 65
5.3 Annual House Price Indices for Florida Districts........................................... 66
5.4 Annual House Price Appreciation (%) for Florida Districts ................................... 67
5.5 Correlation of Annual Appreciation Rates between Districts ................................. 67
5.6 Average Annual Percentage Appreciation and Period Rankings By MSA ............... 69
5.7 Annual House Price Indices for Florida Metropolitan Statistical Areas ............... 70-71
5.8 Annual House Price Appreciation (%) for Florida Metropolitan Statistical Areas 72-73
5.9 Correlation of Annual Appreciation Rates between MSAs................................ 72-73
5.10 Average Annual Percentage Appreciation and Period Rankings By County ........... 75
5.11 Annual House Price Appreciation (%) for Selected Counties ......................... 76-77
5.12 Explaining Past Changes in Real Single-Family House Prices ......................... 76-77
5.13 Average Annual Percentage Appreciation and Period Rankings By MSA ............... 78
5.14 District, MSA and Counties listed by District Location ........................................ 79

Figures
Figure 2.1 Percentage of Population that is Foreign Born in 2000 ................................... 5
Figure 2.2 Percentage Change in Foreign Born Population 1990 to 2000 ................... 10
Figure 2.3 Contribution of New Foreign Born to Population Growth 1990 to 2000 ...... 11
Figure 2.4 Florida Headship Rate by Race/Ethnicity and Age ....................................... 12
Figure 2.5 Florida Homeownership Rate by Race/Ethnicity and Age .......................... 13
Figure 2.5A Headship and Homeownership Rate: White non-Hispanic by Age .............. 14
Figure 2.5B Headship and Homeownership Rate: Black non-Hispanic by Age ............. 14
Figure 2.5C Headship and Homeownership Rate: Hispanic by Age ............................ 14
Figure 2.6 Broward County Hispanic Households as a Percentage of all
H households by Census Tract ........................... ........ .............................. 15
Figure 2.7 Broward County Hispanic Households Percent Change in the Number of
Households 1990-2000 ............................ ......... .................... 16
Figure 2.8 Orlando MSA Hispanic Households as a Percentage of all Households
by C ensus Tract............................ ..... ..... ....... ................................. 19
Figure 2.9 Orlando MSA Households Percent Change in the Number of
H households 1990-2000 .......................... ... ...... ..................... ... 20
Figure 3.1 Percentage of State's Single-Family Housing Stock....................................... 30
Figure 3.2 Median 2001 Sales Price Single-Family Home .............................................. 31
Figure 3.3 Percentage of State's Condominium Stock................................................... 42
Figure 3.4 Median 2001 Sales Price for Condominiums ..................... ..................... 43
Figure 5.1 Florida Annual House Price Index and Appreciation .................................. 62
Figure 5.2 Florida Annual House Price Appreciation ........................ ..................... 63
Figure 5.3 Average Annual House Price Appreciation................................................... 64








1. Introduction


This study is a compendium of facts
on Florida's housing. The data highlight
the tremendous diversity in housing
characteristics across the state,
particularly between the 35 urban
counties and the 32 rural counties, as
well as between coastal and non-coastal
counties. The characteristics of Florida's
housing reflect the characteristics of the
state's population. The population of the
state is growing, creating a demand for
additional housing, yet that growth is not
distributed uniformly across the state.
Growth is most often a coastal
phenomenon. Further, the nature of the
growth differs across the state as
characterized by age, income, race,
ethnicity, and county of origin. The
following report is divided into four
sections that examine the effect of
immigration on the housing stock,
Florida's housing stock, the affordability
of the housing stock, and price trends
and forecasts for Florida's housing stock.
Over the last ten years, Florida has had
a large influx in immigration with many
of those immigrants entering the country
between 1990 and 2000. These recently
arriving immigrants have made up a large
part of population growth in many of
the counties, with all but one county,
Jackson, experiencing an increase in the
number of foreign born residents. In
seven of Florida's counties, these new
arrivals made up over thirty-five percent
of the counties population growth over
the last decade. Section 2 of the report
examines how local housing markets
have changed to adjust to this new
market.
Property appraiser data files are used
to examine Florida's housing stock in
Section 3. First the housing stock is
separated into three broad categories,
single-family housing, condominiums,
and multi-family housing, which is
further separated into complexes with
two to nine units and complexes with


ten or more units. This separation
highlights the difference between the
rural, urban, and coastal counties.
Single-family housing units dominate,
but condominiums are an important
source of housing in some coastal
counties and manufactured housing play
a key role in rural counties in the interior
of the state. Other broad trends are
discussed in this section including the
total number of units, the median age
of units, and the median sales price of
units in each county. The coastal and
large urban counties tend to have the
largest number of units and the highest
median sales prices when compared to
the rest of the state.
The issue of housing affordability is
examined in Section 4. The most
affordable housing is generally located
in rural counties in the interior and
northern part of the state. In general, the
least affordable counties are either coastal
counties or located in major
metropolitan areas. Besides examining
the individual counties, Section 4
examines affordability at the state level
and finds that after years of increasing
affordability, housing became less
affordable in Florida over the last year.
This decline in affordability is likely due
to the fact that housing prices have
continued to appreciate rapidly in the
state while personal income has
experienced little growth over the last
two years.
The movement in house prices and
the rate of appreciation in housing is
discussed in Section 5. Florida is
currently experiencing the highest five-
year real rate of increase in housing prices
that it has ever seen. House prices have
increased by almost 4.0 percent per year
over and above the general rate of
inflation the last five years. Housing
prices are predicted to continue rising
with the southern portion of the state
and the six largest metropolitan areas 3









s ing



^^B{2003h^^


experiencing higher than average
increases, and lower than average price
increases forecast in the northwest part
of the state.
This report first discusses
immigrations effect on the state's housing
stock. Second, it details characteristics of
the housing stock in the state. Third, it
discusses issues in the affordability of
housing in the state. Finally, it discusses
the movement in house prices and the
rate of appreciation in housing. The
expectation is that the information
included in this study will help readers
to understand the diversity, the needs, the
public policy concerns, and the
opportunities of Florida's many housing
markets.


2. Population Change:
Race/Ethnicity and
Housing

Margaret Murray, Department of Urban
and Regional Planning, Florida
Atlantic University

2.1 Introduction

The state of Florida is a mosaic of
racial and ethnic groups making a place
for themselves and their families. While
many areas of the state are rural and the
population predominately white, the
urban areas are home to an increasingly
diverse population. In 1990 minorities
constituted 26.8 percent of the state's
population and in 2000 34.6 percent.
This chapter examines minority
residential patterns in Florida and
evaluates how those patterns have
changed over time. Also presented is a
brief discussion of the availability and use
of the US Census of Population and
Housing data for 1990 and 2000.


The foreign-born population includes all people who were not U.S. citizens at birth. Foreign-born people are those
who indicated they were either a U.S. citizen by naturalization or they were not a citizen of the United States.
Census 2000 does not ask about immigration status. The population surveyed includes all people who indicated
that the United States was their usual place of residence on the census date. The foreign-born population includes:
immigrants (legal permanent residents), temporary migrants (e.g., students), humanitarian migrants (e.g., refugees),
and unauthorized migrants (people II ,.11. residing in the United States).


During the 38 years since the 1965
passage of amendments to the 1952
Immigration and Nationality Act, the
number of foreign born in the United
States has increased substantially. In
contrast to earlier policies, this
amendment identified family
reunification as the main preference
category for entry. This preference
continues today, although legislation
passed in 2001 also gives additional
preference to certain workers with
technical skills needed in US industries.
Our discussion uses data primarily from
the 2000 Census; the term foreign born
used in this report has the same meaning
as the census definition which is found
in the footnote below.' The term "new
foreign born" used in this report means
that portion of the foreign born
population who entered the U.S. from
1990 to 2000.
Florida is one of the high immigration
states. However, South Florida is no longer
the only focal point of Florida's racially and
ethnically diverse neighborhoods. Data
collected in the 2000 Census illustrates
how the population of Florida is
changing everywhere from the
Panhandle to the Keys.
As illustrated in Table 2.1 and Figures
2.1, 2.2 and 2.3, all but one of Florida's
counties, Jackson, saw an increase in the
total number of foreign born and all
counties saw an increase in foreign born
entering the U.S. in the last ten years.
While Miami-Dade County saw the
largest increase in absolute numbers of
foreign born (over 273,000 people),
several counties, mostly small or rural,
saw increases over 200 percent. Large
percentage increases weren't restricted to
small counties, however. There were
increases in the number of foreign born
of over 150 percent in Orange and
Collier and over 200 percent in Osceola.







2.2 Population


The level of immigration during the
1990s particularly impacted several
counties in the state those in which new
foreign born were a substantial portion
of the total population increase over the
decade. Using the ratio of new foreign


Hendry and Hardee in more detail later
in this report.
Because the structure of the currently
released census data does not permit us
to focus on just the immigrant
population, the remainder of this chapter
will consider the similarities and
differences between the three largest


Figure 2.1 Percentage of Population that is Foreign Born in 2000

0 to 4.99%
born to total population change as an -4 .%
[ 10 to 14.99%
indicator there were seven counties in 15 ito 19.99%
which new foreign born represented 35 r 20 to 50.94% ..
Percent2 Or more of the population ,, ,J7
percent2 or more of the population racial/ethnic groups in the state, White,
increase from 199unties0 to 2000: Monroe,d for
non-Hispanic; Black, non-Hispanic; and
Miami-Dade, Desoto, Pinellas, Broward,n in t tpicay bad on o ation
Hispanic or Latino.
-endry, and Hardee. Among these
seven are some of the largest and smallest 2.3 Headship and
countiess in the state. Miami-Dade andir ry r i
3roward counties alone accounted for Ho eow nership
,ver 56 percent of the new foreign 1
r 56 p n The assessment of housing needs is
population. The total population in the typically based on population
even counties varies from a low ofthe seven the population. It is generally accepted
counties, onroe an iamiae te projections. This estimation frequently
26,38 in Hardee County to a high of considers specific subpopulations such as
2,253,362 in Miami-Dade. Figure 2.3 the elderly or low-income. Until recently,
illustrates the extent to which population however, little thought has been given to
growth over the decade was driven by differences in housing consumption by )/
:he influx of new foreign born in these different racial or ethnic components of
seven counties. In two of the seven the population. It is generally accepted "
counties, Monroe and Miami-Dade, the that as individuals reach maturity they ,d ,*


increase in new foreign born exceeded
the total population growth over the
decade. Since many new foreign born
are young, this level of change leads us
to ask questions about homeownership
rates, and the type and availability of
housing. We examine five of the seven
counties, two large Broward and
Miami-Dade and three small DeSoto,


tend to leave home and form new
households. Most enter the housing
market as renters and after some years
move to homeownership. In a multi-
ethnic area, understanding how the
different racial/ethnic age cohorts
contribute to household growth is key
to predicting both renter and owner
household growth.


The state average is 34 percent and these are the counties at the 90th percentile and above.


s




s


i





t
s







The State of Florida's Housing, 2003


Numerical Percent Change Numerical % Change
Change in Total in Total Change, Total in Total
Population Population Foreign Born Foreign Born
1990-2000 1990-2000 1990-2000 1990-2000

COUNTY
Alachua County 36359 20.0% 5216 48.8%
Baker County 3773 20.4% 109 77.3%
Bay County 21223 16.7% 1060 24.5%
Bradford County 3573 15.9% 234 104.0%
Brevard County 77252 19.4% 10039 47.9%
Broward County 367530 29.3% 212113 107.0%
Calhoun County 2006 18.2% 194 210.9%
Charlotte County 30652 27.6% 4274 60.9%
Citrus County 24570 26.3% 1162 25.4%
Clay County 34828 32.9% 3040 91.7%
Collier County 99278 65.3% 30168 189.7%
Columbia County 13900 32.6% 611 86.7%
DeSoto County 8344 35.0% 4720 358.4%
Dixie County 3242 30.6% 194 220.5%
Duval County 105908 15.7% 22341 95.8%
Escambia County 31612 12.0% 3795 54.0%
Flagler County 21131 73.6% 2582 108.7%
Franklin County 2090 23.3% 49 30.4%
Gadsden County 3982 9.7% 1347 268.9%
Gilchrist County 4770 49.3% 128 104.1%
Glades County 2985 39.3% 494 143.2%
Gulf County 1828 15.9% 129 88.4%
Hamilton County 2397 21.9% 120 66.7%
Hardee County 7439 38.2% 3475 283.2%
Hendry County 10437 40.5% 4929 130.7%
Hernando County 29687 29.4% 1362 24.4%
Highlands County 18934 27.7% 4778 152.5%
Hillsborough County 164894 19.8% 51798 81.8%
Holmes County 2786 17.7% 94 41.6%
Indian River County 22739 25.2% 3629 65.7%
Jackson County 5380 13.0% -218 -23.6%
Jefferson County 1606 14.2% 45 39.5%
Lafayette County 1444 25.9% 240 106.2%
Lake County 58424 38.4% 5525 104.3%















Foreign Born Foreign Born "New" Foreign New Foreign
as a % of % of Total Born (entered Born as a % of
Total Population Population U.S. 1990- Population Change
2000 1990 March 2000) 1990-2000


7.3%
1.1%
3.6%
1.8%
6.5%
25.3%
2.2%
8.0%
4.9%
4.5%
18.3%
2.3%
18.7%
2.0%
5.9%
3.7%
9.9%
1.9%
4.1%
1.7%
7.9%
2.1%
2.3%
17.5%
24.0%
5.3%
9.1%
11.5%
1.7%
8.1%
1.5%
1.2%
6.6%
5.1%


5.9%
0.8%
3.4%
1.0%
5.3%
15.8%
0.8%
6.3%
4.9%
3.1%
10.5%
1.7%
5.5%
0.8%
3.5%
2.7%
8.3%
1.8%
1.2%
1.3%
4.5%
1.3%
1.6%
6.3%
14.6%
5.5%
4.6%
7.6%
1.4%
6.1%
2.2%
1.0%
4.1%
3.5%


8150
83
1538
86
8081
167860
81
2277
980
1815
23877
405
4005
72
19605
3583
963
51
757
101
233
92
177
2589
4332
1175
3495
49054
70
3199
146
4
319
3914


22.4%
2.2%
7.2%
2.4%
10.5%
45.7%
4.0%
7.4%
4.0%
5.2%
24.1%
2.9%
48.0%
2.2%
18.5%
11.3%
4.6%
2.4%
19.0%
2.1%
7.8%
5.0%
7.4%
34.8%
41.5%
4.0%
18.5%
29.7%
2.5%
14.1%
2.7%
0.2%
22.1%
6.7%







The State of Florida's Housing, 2003


Numerical Percent Change Numerical % Change
Change in Total in Total Change, Total in Total
Population Population Foreign Born Foreign Born
1990-2000 1990-2000 1990-2000 1990-2000

COUNTY
Lee County 105775 31.6% 22912 131.3%
Leon County 46959 24.4% 4306 61.2%
Levy County 8527 32.9% 288 47.5%
Liberty County 1452 26.1% 91 165.5%
Madison County 2164 13.1% 279 300.0%
Manatee County 52295 24.7% 10856 95.4%
Marion County 64083 32.9% 6367 91.2%
Martin County 25831 25.6% 3443 50.1%
Miami-Dade County 316268 16.3% 273196 31.2%
Monroe County 1565 2.0% 3850 48.8%
Nassau County 13722 31.2% 831 117.0%
Okaloosa County 26722 18.6% 2799 45.3%
Okeechobee County 6283 21.2% 2257 120.4%
Orange County 218853 32.3% 77849 152.5%
Osceola County 64765 60.1% 16453 214.9%
Palm Beach County 267666 31.0% 91549 86.9%
Pasco County 63634 22.6% 7471 44.8%
Pinellas County 69823 8.2% 27273 45.1%
Polk County 78542 19.4% 19113 132.7%
Putnam County 5353 8.2% 956 67.6%
St. Johns County 39306 46.9% 2980 97.4%
St. Lucie County 42524 28.3% 10647 111.9%
Santa Rosa County 36135 44.3% 1781 100.7%
Sarasota County 48181 17.3% 13761 82.6%
Seminole County 77667 27.0% 15250 84.6%
Sumter County 21768 68.9% 2326 380.1%
Suwannee County 8064 30.1% 1218 294.9%
Taylor County 2145 12.5% 160 100.6%
Union County 3190 31.1% 36 14.5%
Volusia County 72631 19.6% 7013 32.9%
Wakulla County 8661 61.0% 162 94.2%
Walton County 12841 46.3% 856 187.7%
Washington County 4054 24.0% 122 30.7%


State Total 3,044,452 23.5% 1,008,227 60.6%















Foreign Born Foreign Born "New" Foreign New Foreign
as a % of % of Total Born (entered Born as a % of
Total Population Population U.S. 1990- Population Change
2000 1990 March 2000) 1990-2000


9.2%
4.7%
2.6%
2.1%
2.0%
8.4%
5.2%
8.1%
50.9%
14.7%
2.7%
5.3%
11.5%
14.4%
14.0%
17.4%
7.0%
9.5%
6.9%
3.4%
4.9%
10.5%
3.0%
9.3%
9.1%
5.5%
4.7%
1.7%
2.1%
6.4%
1.5%
3.2%
2.5%


16.7%


5.2%
3.7%
2.3%
1.0%
0.6%
5.4%
3.6%
6.8%
45.1%
10.1%
1.6%
4.3%
6.3%
7.5%
7.1%
12.2%
5.9%
7.1%
3.6%
2.2%
3.6%
6.3%
2.2%
6.0%
6.3%
1.9%
1.5%
0.9%
2.4%
5.8%
1.2%
1.6%
2.4%


12.9%


17858
5095
277
87
188
9803
3318
3673
416059
4869
573
2291
2048
59033
11057
81788
6902
32841
14505
881
1395
7333
1033
11219
12005
828
1036
68
89
8492
75
429
132


1,030,449


16.9%
10.8%
3.2%
6.0%
8.7%
18.7%
5.2%
14.2%
131.6%
311.1%
4.2%
8.6%
32.6%
27.0%
17.1%
30.6%
10.8%
47.0%
18.5%
16.5%
3.5%
17.2%
2.9%
23.3%
15.5%
3.8%
12.8%
3.2%
2.8%
11.7%
0.9%
3.3%
3.3%


33.8%









us ing



^^B{2003h^^


behavior of foreign born who arrive in
this country as adults. Unfortunately,
these data are not readily available from
the Census.


Figure 2.2 Percentage Change in Forein Born Population,
1990-2000
E Negative GrovAr,
E 0 to 49.99%
5 60% to 99.99%
S100%to 149.99".
150 to 380.1%

and Whites in the 15-24 year age r.. 'up
In the 24-35 year age group, BlaIcks i ,,
a higher rate of household headship [Ih tir
do Whites. This trend continue., up ..
the 75-84 year age group when \\ hir
headship rates exceed that of B itck, iir
every age group, Hispanics 'c. .r*m
household heads at a much low. r itr
The number of household head r the
sum of both owner and r.initr
households. Two issues of imp. rt irn i-
relative to calculating headship rates for
racial/ethnic groups with large numbers
of foreign born are the age of the foreign
born upon arrival in the U.S. and the
duration of residence in the U.S. The
housing behavior of non-native residents
who arrive in this country as children is
more likely to mirror that of persons
born in the U.S. than is the housing


The formation of independent
households by minorities is commonly
thought to take place at a later age than
it does for whites. There are a number
of reasons for this. These include both
the cultural traditions of specific ethnic
groups and the economic realities
associated with education and
employment opportunities. However, at
least at the State level in age groups from
25 through 74, Blacks form independent
households at a slightly higher rate than
do Whites or Hispanics. As seen in
Figure 2.4, the rate of household
formation is about identical for Blacks


""""
===;
J
`"
..













ps ,,,.r,,~


Figure 2.3 Contribution of New Foreign Born to Population Growth,
1990-2000
l0 to 16.99S
E 17 to 33.99
E 34 to 50.99
51 to 311.1


2.4 Racial/Ethnic Differences
in Housing

The continuing influx of new
residents to the state has increased the
demand for housing. This demand is
being met to a large degree by Florida's
very active home construction industry.
There are now over 7.3 million housing
units in the state. This is 1,657,350 more
than there were in 1990. Over 65 percent
of these new housing units are owner
occupied. However, homeownership
may be difficult for many of Florida's new
foreign born because of lack of
knowledge about the housing market,
income, credit issues and an inability to
speak English fluently.
There are a number of differences
between the housing choices of Whites,
Blacks, and Hispanics. Although we can
examine the results of housing choices,
we can only speculate on the reasons
behind those choices and the extent to
which local housing markets
accommodate various racial/ethnic
groups and income levels. A major
housing choice consideration for most
households is structure type. State level
data indicates that over 54 percent of
Blacks and 58 percent of Whites occupy
single-family detached units. However,
only 46 percent of the Hispanics do so.
The median value of owner occupied


housing in 2000 was $110,300 for \: .:. -
Whites, $78,400 for Blacks and '-- -
$113,000 for Hispanics. Using a
standard of crowding that identifies units
as crowded when occupancy rises above
one person per room, we find 15 percent
of Black-occupied units, 23 percent of --:..:.
Hispanic-occupied units, and 2 percent
of White-occupied classified as
overcrowded. Evidence suggests that for
some racial/ethnic groups the one person
per room standard may be too stringent
as larger households are the norm.
The transition from rental housing to
homeownership is triggered by a number
of different life events such as marriage,
the birth of a child, or an increase in
income. However sizable differences exist
between various racial/ethnic groups
relative to the attainment of
homeownership. To calculate just the
ownership rate, we divide the number of
household heads who are owners in each
age category by the total number of
individuals in that age category. The
ownership rate will always be lower than
the total headship rate because some of
the household heads are renters.
Using state level data, Figure 2.5
illustrates the ownership rate by race/
ethnicity. In every age group the
homeowner-ship rate for White exceeds
that of Black or Hispanic. In the 24-35
year age group and in the 35-44 year age
11


I'M
%
1%
2%
2%

































0.8
State a Fl orida'
























0.7
0..6

0.7

0.-


0.2
0.1-
0.4^-- -- fl -- -- -- -- --
0.3- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

0 .2 f -- -- -- -- -- --
0 1 - -- -- -- -- -- --

15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84

-1- White
-- Black
A- Hispanic


group, Black and Hispanic
homeownership rates are relatively close
together. Beyond that the ownership
rates for Hispanic is significantly lower
than for either White or Black.
Estimates of future population growth
at each age level combined with
estimates of headship or ownership rates
for each specific age group and racial/
ethnic category produces an
approximation of housing needs for
both rental and owner occupied
housing. The housing needs number can
then be compared with the existing
housing stock and anticipated future
construction of both rental and owner
occupied dwellings.
Figures 2.5A, 2.5B, and 2.5C
illustrates the
homeownership rate for
different racial/ethnic groups
in the seven high
immigration counties
(Broward, Miami-Dade,
DeSoto, Hardee, and
Hendry). Homeownership
attainment for White, non-
Hispanics generally exceeds
that of Black, non-Hispanics
or Hispanics. And, as with
the state data, Hispanics have
lower homeowner-ship rates
85+ than do the other groups. In
DeSoto and Hardee Counties
the highest homeownership rate is in the
55-64 age group. This may reflect the
character of these counties as "good
places to retire." In most of the five
counties the percent of owner occupied
housing units increased.
The next section examines racial/
ethnic differences in housing in two
areas of the state that grew significantly
in the 1990s due to the immigrant
influx.


2.5 Local Responses:
Broward County

The Broward County portion of the
Miami-Fort Lauderdale MSA had over
740,000 housing units in 2000, a growth
rate of 18 percent since 1990 (see Table
2.2). There were 84,780 new single-
family homes and 27,603 multi-family
units built in Broward County between
1990 and March of 2000. Large home-
building corporations constructed most
of the single-family units in the western
part of the county where large tracts of
open land were still available. These
corporations frequently targeted the
growing Hispanic population in their
advertising campaigns as well as in their
subdivision design.
The total foreign born population in
Broward County more than doubled
during the 1990s. Many of those new
foreign born located in the Miramar-
Pembrooke Pines area of the county
(further discussion is found in the
Appendix to this section). The cities of
Miramar and Pembrooke Pines are
located in the southern part of Broward
County. The southern boundary of
Miramar is contiguous with the Broward/
Miami-Dade county line and Pembrooke
Pines lies directly north ofMiramar. Both
of these cities experienced rapid growth
in population and housing units during
the past decade. The population in
Pembrooke Pines alone grew by an
astounding 106 percent. As seen in Table
2.3 most of the population change is a
result of the increase in both Black, non-
Hispanic and Hispanic people moving
into the area. Figures 2.6 and 2.7
illustrate the census tracts in 1990 and
2000 with respect to the Hispanic
population. These maps illustrate where
the Hispanic population settled during
the decade.


SOne builder, Lisa Maxwell, Director of Redevelopment for the Lennar Corporation and former Executive Director
of the Builders' Association of South Florida, commented about accommodating the racial and ethnic diversity
found in South Florida. She noted that in planning new housing it was important to think about how people use
space. For example, some racial/ethnic groups may be more likely to live in extended families therefore it is
important to design floor plans that respect that family structure.







In fact, the May 19, 2003 issue of
USA Today included Pembrooke Pines in
a front-page article titled 'New
Brooklyns' replace white suburbs. The
article highlighted a number of cities
throughout the country that are now
home to an increasingly diverse
population. This racial and ethnic
diversity means that for much of the
population English is a second language
and it is not typically the language spoken
at home. Other differences include larger
households and the need for larger
housing units. The average household
size for the Black and Hispanic
community is 2.97 and 3.19 respectively
while for White households it is 2.28
persons per household.
Home construction in the City of
Pembrooke Pines exploded during the
1990s. By March of 2000, there were
over 93 percent more homes in the City
than existed prior to 1990. Table 2.4
compares 1990 housing unit data to
2000 data for the City. The number of
large and small units increased
dramatically. The number of efficiency
units increased by 392 percent and one
bedroom units grew by 246 percent. The
number of homes with four and five or
more bedrooms also grew appreciably.
Over 7000 homes with seven or more
rooms were added to the housing stock.3

2.6 Local Responses:
Orlando MSA

The Orlando metro area is made up
of four counties: Orange, Seminole,
Lake, and Osceola. Orange County is the
most metropolitan of the four counties
and it is home to the City of Orlando,
the county seat. Orange County gained
more than 59,000 new foreign born in
the past decade and total population
increased by 32 percent. As presented in
Table 2.5 both the Black and Hispanic
population grew considerably. Overall,
construction of new housing units
appears to have kept pace with the
population change as the number of total


housing units increased by 28 percent.
Most of those new homes were built to
accommodate the need for additional
single-family housing. Figures 2.8 and
2.9 illustrate the change in Hispanic
population by census tract in
the four-county Orlando metro
area.
Many of the new foreign 0.7
born settled in the City of o
Orlando. However, in contrast
to the county, most of the new 0.5
housing units in Orlando are
0.4-
multi-family units rather than
single-family units. Owner 0.3
occupation increased only 12 .2
percent while renter occupation
increased by 38 percent (see 0.1
Table 2.6). The largest increase 0
by unit size took place in one 15-
and two room units.
The racial/ethnic mix in the City of
Orlando is changing. This mix is
presented in Table 2.7. Orlando is
definitely more of a racial/ethnic melting
pot today than it was in 1990. The Black
population increased by 18 percent and
the Hispanic population by 140 percent
from 1990 through 1999. The major
increase in households occurred in one-
person households. Data presented in
Table 2.8 indicates that the largest
Hispanic group is Puerto Rican with
6,234 households and an average
household size of 2.7. It is also
interesting, that in general all Hispanic
household and family sizes are larger
than White households and families but
comparable to Black households and
families. The median income level in the
city is $35,732 but lower for Blacks at
$25,447, and for Hispanics at $29,347.


24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+

-1- White
-0- Black
A- Hispanic


2.7 Conclusion

Over the past decade, the population
of Florida has increased dramatically.
This increase is fueled by continued
migration of residents of northern states
looking for warm winter weather and by
the almost constant flow of foreign born 1
13










s ing



^^B{2003h^^


FigureII2.5AIYHeadfshipISandS Homeo~lwnershfipI
Rae *hte go-isai gy Age


15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+



Ra.e Blck No-isai *y g Age


--- Headship
-- Homeownership


15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+


FigLIIure .5CmuwHeadhipISandS HomeownersI~glhipS
Rate Hipai g y Age


15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+








S -gr 2. 66 6 66wa County .is c Hs as a P g o


BROWARD


Hispanic Households as Percentage of All Households hy Census Tract 2000
N: H. :, H:j-~ er.:l I

Z' 4-, t: I:* ,:f D



































Kiure2S rwa n .. S se .6er5n -a SS th NS **s












Table 2.s .B roward ount: Hosing nd Ppula tio -


1990


Housing
':',:, C lv 1 ,e iu SI.:.,k
% Change in Single Family
Median Value
Ratio of median value to state

Households
Average Household Size

Population
Total Population
White
Black
Hispanic

Economic
Median Household Income
Ratio of median income to state


275978
$91,800
NA

527860
2.37


1255488
942529
187608
105668


$32,728
1.10


2000 Change


360758
$102,800
1.10

654787
2.45


1623018
941674
325305
271523


31%
12%
NA

24%
3%


29%
0%
73%
157%


$41,691 27%
1.07 -2%


ITale.3e mrn oke- Pines-rn RacalE i H n P ie 2


White non-Hispanic
Black non-Hispanic
Hispanic
Cuban
Mexican
Puerto Rican
South American


Occupied Units
Owner Renter
26141 5228
4030 1705
9558 2597
3861 549
196 98
1736 601
1831 688


Average Size
Households Families
2.28 2.86
2.97 3.38
3.19 3.40
3.06 3.35
2.92 3.29
3.00 3.38
3.53 3.72










. S The


T6I Able 2.4 Pembrok Pines: Sel d H D


Housing Units
Total Units
Single Family
Multi-family
Total Occupied Units
Owner Occupied
Renter Occupied

Age of Units
1990 March 2000
1980s
1970s
1960s
Pre 1960

Number
of rooms
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9+

Number
of Bedrooms
0
1
2
3
4
5+

Median Gross Rent
Median Value
Ratio Median
Value to County


1990 2000
28665 55293
16145 34018
12520 21275
26213 51981
20434 41636
5779 10345


Change
93%
111%
70%
98%
104%
79%


27735
14246
9011
3447
1064


127 625
785 2717
3094 6853
8252 11053
5900 10726
4404 8031
3681 7674
1662 3028
759 2586




147 1227
3945 7465
13049 19265
8855 16913
2471 8972
197 1451


392%
246%
121%
34%
82%
82%
108%
82%
241%




735%
89%
48%
91%
263%
637%


$667 $945 42%
$93,800 $122,700 31%











Figes 2 .. Orland S Hispai Hus atge of Al H o by C u T


1990


2000












. S The


Figur 2. rad S ipncHueod Peren Chang inth


-5.1 to -0.0 %
D l vto vv1.99%










2 to 2.399%'L"";:'

3 to 34.8%
l-c1 v"iaii:t vt? I2/111
/Vi %;i"-;i?.L`;1A Uk/&&
vt ta tz;:-:.i; L at ? ? ? vi
12 vt 1 1 i?.-l,, a~~2/1 ; 32
!;i,tt ;ilv'rt vbyvt St 1
: Lil 1/ v 712
'c2/& 1 14 1 VM1 2,~~'~:''
vt 2;~ 11~ ; vt vt st >at~: 2
~~-Ii . . ;::: L~I
'~;~e-;2 s?,; i';?- vbWl1?.
714 2~-i vvtvb L2/1
:::a'tR/&;2i vtARc~vie 'L%2'












Table 2.5 Orange County: S electe Housn C


1990 2000


Housing
':',:, C lv 1 ,e il S I.:., k
% Change in Single Family
Median Value
Ratio of median value to state

Households
Average Household Size

Population
White
Black
Hispanic

Economic
Median Household Income
Ratio of median income to state


172070
$85,751
NA

254862
2.66

677491
497567
100443
53087


$31,708
1.07


272070
$100,300
1.08

336366
2.66

896344
516024
155912
168191


$41,311
0.99


Change



58%
17%
NA

32%
0%

32%
4%
55%
217%


30%
-7%


ITable 2. 6 Orlan do: Selected Housig C te r


1990


2000 Change


Housing Units Number of rooms
Total Units 71920 88636 25% 1
Single Family 35958 38944 8% 2
Multi-family 35962 49692 38% 3
Total Occupied Units 64713 81020 25% 4
Owner Occupied 29508 33052 12% 5
Renter Occupied 35205 47968 36% 6
7


Age of Units
1990- March 2000
1980s
1970s
1960s
Pre 1960


18840
22769
14457
11560
23225


1921
5242
11292
16954
14929
10558
5142
3125
1757


3799 98%
9453 80%
15342 36%
18440 9%
17165 15%
12023 14%
6856 33%
3183 2%
2382 36%


Number of Bedrooms
0 2485 4782 92%
1 15669 20710 32%
2 27703 32999 19%
3 20731 23444 13%
4 4615 5912 28%
5+ 718 789 10%


Median Gross Rent $494
Median Value $74,815
Ratio Median
Value to County 0.87


$700 42%
$97,400 30%

0.97 12%









. S The


Table 2.7 6 Orlando: Selecte r


1990 2000


Population
To:,tal
White
Black
Hispanic

Households
Total

Size
1 person
2 persons
3 persons
4 persons
5 persons
6 persons
7+


97931
40730
13685


94328
48193
32897


looking for economic opportunity. The
level of foreign migration has changed
the music we hear on the radio, the food
we eat in restaurants, and the
neighborhoods in our urban areas.
Neighborhoods that were once
predominately white and elderly are now
multi-racial and younger. As foreign
born settle into this country, they will
increasingly pursue the opportunity to
own a home of their own. In those
counties with large numbers of foreign-
born people, housing markets that
accommodate
particular racial/
ethnic groups are
Change a 1 r e a d y
established. For
4% local housing
18% policy planners
140% and adminis-
trators, new


64517 80996 26%


20318
22094
10189
6927
2959
1178
852


28363
27124
12060
7821
3450
1317
885


concerns about
the cost of


housing and the
40% quality and
23% quantity of the
18% housing stock
13% will arise.
17% The decennial
12%
4% census provides
consistent and
dependable data
that helps us understand housing issues
from the state to the very local level.
Fortunately in this computer era, the
data is easy to access and analyze.


APPENDIX

2.1A Using State and Local
Area Census Data

In this section, we illustrate typical
uses of census data both at the state and
local level. State level data affords a broad
picture of housing issues. However,
looking at housing issues using state level


data does little to influence housing
policy at the local level. It is important
therefore to understand both the
geography of the census and the data that
are released from the census for each level
of geography. Fortunately, the Census
Bureau website (http://www.census.gov)
is easily accessed and with a little practice,
easy to use. From the Census Bureau
homepage, data for Census 2000 and the
1990 census are located by clicking on
"Your Gateway to Census 2000." Quick
tables using "American Fact Finder"
provide information on a variety of
population, housing and economic
conditions, or for more detailed tables,
go directly to one of the summary files.
These files are easily imported into an
EXCEL or similar spreadsheet for further
analysis and graphing. Compact disks
containing census data along with a
program to access these data can be
purchased directly from the web site.
Alternatively, the Census Bureau
publishes a number of printed reports
that can be purchased or are available at
a designated census repository library.
Census data is presented in four
summary files. Summary File 1 and 2
(SF1, SF2) contain 100 percent data
while SF3 and SF4 contain sample data.
The decision as to which file to use is
based on the data needed. For example,
SF2 has more detailed data on race/
ethnicity than does SF1 or SF3 both SF1
and SF3 presents information down to
the ZIP code level. Census geography is
hierarchical in form from the largest to
smallest area. That is from the United
States, to a particular state, to the county
level and then to successively smaller
levels until the block level is reached.
There are 10 levels in all4. Additionally,
the Census web site offers simple
mapping capabilities.
The next segment focuses on creating
a snapshot of current housing conditions
in Hendry County and Broward County
Following that, data from Census 2000


In order to develop a better understanding of the census see: Meyers, Dowell. 1992. Analysis with Local Census
Data: Portraits of Change. San Diego, Academic Press, Inc.







is compared to 1990 census data in order
to evaluate change.


2.2A Understanding Current
Conditions

A variety of questions come to mind
when we attempt to understand a
locality's current housing conditions.
These questions are typically related to
household size, ownership, affordability,
crowding and quality, as well as questions
about race and ethnicity. Evaluating the
same housing issues at successively
smaller jurisdictions illustrates how a
given area compares with or diverges
from a parent area. Census geography
creates divisions on a number of different
levels. Following the state and the county
level, the Census Bureau identifies a
statistical area known as a census county
division (CCD) and a minor civil
division (MCD). The MCD is a
recognized political division in many
states however not in Florida. The CCD
is included to balance the geographic
divisions but has little practical use. A
better choice for comparative analysis is
to identify all of the census tracts that
comprise the city, town or
jurisdiction of interest.
Another choice is to use the
geographic level referred to
by the Census Bureau as
"place." Incorporated cities
are identified as places and Total Po
the Census Bureau also % White
designates areas with % Blac
boundaries that residents % Hisp
% Othei
recognize (i.e. a suburban % Elder
% Elder
area that is not part of a city) % Belo\
as a census-designated place
(CDP).
In the case of Hendry
County the geographic Total Po
divisions following the state % White
and county are the % Blacl
Clewiston CCD and the % Hisp
LaBelle CCD. The % Othe
% Elder
Clewiston CCD includes % Belo
the City of Clewiston, theBelo
the City of Clewiston, the


Harlem CDP, and the remainder of the
area designated as part of the Clewiston
CCD. In Broward County, the Miramar-
Pembroke Pines CCD includes the City
of Miramar, the City of Pembroke Pines,
and a number of recognizable named
subdivisions designated as CDPs.


I Table 2. 8 Orlan3do: Raci i Husi P l 2


White non-Hispanic
Black non-Hispanic
Hispanic
Cuban
Mexican
Puerto Rican
South American


Occupied Units
Owner Renter
22779 25412
5847 11284
3245 8402
524 675
137 574
1652 4582
330 945


Average Size
Households Families
1.94 2.66
2.74 3.36
2.72 3.23
2.38 3.02
2.91 3.52
2.7 3.19
2.83 3.25


Hendry County is located south and
west of Lake Okeechobee. Even though
the total population in rural Hendry
County is relatively small, it is unique in
that the number of foreign born grew by
over 130 percent during the decade of
the 1990s. The county seat is LaBelle and
the City of Clewiston is home to Florida's
sugar industry.


-- -e U Crren ouaio hrceisisb ac/tnct


Broward County


population
e
k
anic
r
ly
N Poverty Level


1,623,018
58%
20%
17%
5%
16%
12%


Hendry County


population
e
k
anic
r
ly
N Poverty Level


36210
43.88%
14.76%
39.59%
1.76%
10.26%
24.00%


Miramar Census
Tract
1104.03


72,739
22%
42%
29%
7%
6%
8%

Clewiston


6460
46.05%
10.54%
40.94%
2.46%
9.85%
19.00%


5,112
24%
45%
25%
6%
7%
8%


Census
Tract
1105

8,028
21%
52%
21%
7%
8%
5%


6567
46.37%
10.72%
40.43%
2.48%
9.98%
19.00%


7506
33.29%
38.30%
26.74%
1.67%
8.13%
27.00%


Census Census
Tract 1 Tract 2









s ing



^^B{2003h^^


I Table2.10 Selected Current Housin Css


Miramar



25,898
21,062
4,318
518
0
$112,600
$694

Clewiston


2,458
1,441
534
483
0
$93,500
$382


Census
Tract
1104.03

1,651
3,689
34
0
0
$96,600
$881

Census
Tract 1

2,513
1,465
534
493
21
$45,200
$322


Total Housing Units
Single Family (att. + det.)
Multi Family
Mobile Homes
Boats
Median Value Own
Median Contract Rent


741,043
360,764
352,349
26,834
1,096
$102,800
$676


Hendry County


Total Housing Units
Single Family (att. + det.)
Multi Family
Mobile Homes
Boats
Median Value Own
Median Contract Rent


12,294
5,851
1,005
5,316
122
$56,600
$380


home. The next tables present
2000 data at the county level,
level, and for one or more cens
The next two tables
population and housing unit inf
from both Hendry County and
County. These tables provide
of two different geographic relat
In the first case in Broward Co
parent element is the county fol
the city and then by the two cen
that are wholly contained within
In the second case Hendry Cou
parent element, however, since
of Clewiston is completely con

24 part of one census tract, the cor
24


Broward County, located on Florida's
southeast coast, was selected because it
felt the impact of two significant
population migrations during the decade
of the 1990s. The first was the movement
of people from Miami-Dade County to
Broward County following Hurricane
Andrew's 1992 devastation of hundreds
of housing units. The second is the
recognition by immigrants that Broward
County offers a good quality of life as
more than 16 percent of all new
immigrants selected Broward as their


Comparisons are made between the
Census largest geographic unit and subsequently
Tract smaller ones. Table 2.9 contains data
1105
about current population. The first thing

2,595 to notice about Miramar is that is has a
2402 significantly higher Black population
193 than does Broward County as a whole.
0 Also, there are fewer elderly and fewer
0 people below the poverty level. The two
;95,200
,601 census tracts, 1103.4 and 1105, are both
in the eastern part of Miramar and about
Census half of the population in each tract is
Tract 2 Black.
When the population of Hendry
2,556
925 County and the City of Clewiston is
136 considered, we observe that Clewiston
1472 closely mirrors the county in the
23 proportion of both White and Hispanic
;46,900 persons. There are somewhat fewer
$321 Blacks in the city or in Census Tract 1;
however, Census Tract 2 has over 38
t Census percent. Another observation is the high
the city poverty rate. Although the rate in
us tracts. Clewiston is lower than the county as a
present whole, the rate in Census Tract 2 is
formation higher.
Broward Table 2.10 considers selected current
examples housing information. In Broward
ionships. County, there are almost as many multi-
unty, the family housing units as there are single-
lowed by family units. However, Miramar is over
sus tracts 80 percent single family. Although
Sthe city. Miramar has a number of mobile homes
nty is the there are none in either census tract. The
the City figures for median owner occupied home
trained in value and median contract rent should
nparison be approached with caution. These


is from county to census tracts to the city
or from one census tract to another. The
difference is due to the fact that counties
and cities are political subdivisions with
definite boarders while census tracts are
based on population and have boundaries
that can and do change over time.
For ease of presentation and
discussion, the Broward County and
Hendry County tables are presented
together. It is not our intention to draw
any comparisons between the two
counties, as they are vastly different in
character and economic base. Rather, the


Broward County


g











g







figures reflect housing costs in 1999
dollars. In Broward County, the housing
market has been extremely strong during
the period from 1999 until today.
Housing prices have risen consistently
and in many areas homes are selling for
almost 30 percent more than they did
in 1999. Rents have risen in a similar
though not as dramatic fashion. What
we can learn from these figures is the
relationship between the cost of buying
and the cost of renting. It is interesting
that the median rental rate in Census
Tract 1103.4 is higher than in either
Census Tract 1105 or in the City of
Miramar. This may be due to the fact
that there are very few multi-family units
in CT 1103.4 and rental rates reflect the
cost of renting a single-family home.
Although knowledge about certain
current conditions is essential, it is the
examination of change at a very local
level that leads to new housing policy
decisions. The following tables and
subsequent discussion focus on how the
changing population in Florida affects
the need for housing. One of the
important questions to ask about
housing need is related to the
contribution of minorities to total
household growth and to ownership
growth in the area.


2.3A Examining Change

Before a comparison between 1990
and 2000 census data is made, it is
important to understand the changes in
racial/ethnic categories between the two
data sets. In SF1 and SF2 of the 1990
census, the racial categories consist of
White, Black, American Indian, Asian
and Other. Hispanics are counted
separately and may be of any race. Using
the categories of White, Black and
Hispanic will lead to double counting
as Hispanics are counted once as White
or Black and again as Hispanic. In the
2000 census SF2, the same racial
categories exist but in it is also possible
to identify White, non-Hispanic; Black,


[Table 2 M .iramar C u Ta 1 : Co s


2000 Change


Housing Units
O.ne-r OCC Lup.ie-J
Renter Occupied
Vacant

Housing Costs
Median Value
Percent of County Average
Median Contract Rent
Percent of County Average

Median Gross Rent as a
percentage of Household income

Persons Per Room
.05-1
1.01-2
2 or more
Percent Overcrowded


22(1
264
122


$78,500
85.51%
$629
126.56%


221 6
266
113


$95,200
92.61%
$601
88.91%


33.50% 22.50%


2323
131
11
5.76%


2145
315
22
13.58%


Tabl 2.1 Miamr Cesu Trc 115 Popuatio Chang
-b Rae/thict


1990 2000


T:tial P:p.rLila :.n
White, non-Hispanic
Black, non-Hispanic
Hispanic
Other


Change


5.:., ..-.- ..1.. l ,16 . '.',

4905 1646 -66.44%
737 4189 468.39%
1078 1663 54.27%
168 530 215.48%


0.76%
-7%


21%
8%
-4%
-30%

-33%



-8%
140%
100%
136%









s ing



^^B{2003h^^


non-Hispanic; and Hispanic who may
be of any race. Using 1990 data, it is
possible to create equivalent categories
by backing the White Hispanics out of
the White category and the Black
Hispanics out of the Black category in
the 1990 data set.
Ultimately, the questions we ask
about housing or the housing problems
we need to address determine the type
of comparisons made. Data on housing
in CT 1105 is presented in Table 2.11.
At first glance, it seems that the housing
conditions are somewhat stable. The
level of owner and renter occupied
housing is the same in 2000 as it was in
1990 and the number of vacant houses
has declined. The median value of a
housing unit in 2000 is closer to the
median value in the county than it was
in 1990 and the relative cost of renting
has declined. However, part of the
explanation for the decline in median
gross rent as a percentage of household
income is explained in the next part of
the table when persons per room is
considered. The number of persons per
room has increased dramatically during
the decade. More people are living in
crowded conditions and it is likely that
there are more people in each household
contributing to the rent.
Racial/ethnic patterns are
summarized in Table 2.12. The
percentage of White residents has
declined and the number of Black, non-
Hispanic residents has increased
dramatically from 737 to 4189 persons.
The number of Hispanic residents also
increased. In 1990, White householders
occupied 67 percent of the owner-
occupied housing units and only 9.5
percent by Black householders.


By 2000 of the owner occupied units,
39 percent were occupied by a White
householder and 52 percent by a Black
householder. Hispanic ownership rates in
both periods are above 85 percent.
However the Hispanic calculation
includes both Black and White Hispanics
and are already counted in the
calculations for ownership rates for the
Black and White category. Most of the
housing stock in this census tract was
constructed before 1980. There were 24
new housing units built in 1990 and
none since. Housing policy concerns in
this neighborhood probably focus on the
aging housing stock and the need for
rehabilitation, and the issue of
overcrowded dwellings. The ability to
evaluate change in housing consumption
patterns helps identify these concerns.







3. Florida's Housing

Supply

Douglas White
Florida Data Clearinghouse
Shimberg Center
University of Florida
Marc T Smith, Ph.D.
Shimberg Center
University of Florida

Florida's housing stock includes
single-family units, multifamily units,
and manufactured units. Although all
three types of housing units are
represented, the housing inventory is
dominated by the single-family home.
About 58 percent of the state's single
family housing stock is located in six
major metropolitan areas: Fort
Lauderdale, Jacksonville, Miami,
Orlando, Tampa-St. Petersburg, and
West Palm Beach-Boca Raton. The Fort
Lauderdale and Miami MSAs, because
of their density, also have the distinction
of having the most multifamily housing
of any area in the state. Although not a
type of structure, condominium housing
is an important housing category in some
areas of the state. Broward, Miami-
Dade, and Palm Beach Counties alone
have 58 percent of the state's
condominiums. Significant
concentrations of condominiums are also
found in Collier, Lee, Pinellas, and
Sarasota Counties. Clearly,
condominiums tend to be a coastal
phenomenon. By contrast, mobile or
manufactured housing is largely a rural,
inland phenomenon.

3.1 Data Description

To understand and analyze Florida's
stock of housing, tax assessment records
from the 67 county property appraisers
are examined. From all 67 counties, the
Shimberg Center obtains data on the
four major categories of residentially
coded parcels. This results in a database
that contains information on residential


parcels of land and most residential
structures in Florida, including: parcel
identification; land use code (vacant
residential, single-family, condo-
minium, etc.); total assessed value;
assessed land value; year in which
structure was built; square footage of the
structure; parcel size; date and price of
the two most recent sales; ad valorem
tax jurisdiction; homestead exemption;
and location of the property by section,
township, and range. The database
contains most but not all residential
structures, excluding (1) residential
structures located on land that is not
residentially coded, such as residential
structures located on land that has an
agriculture coding or residential
structures that have a commercial
coding (2) manufactured housing not
classified as real property (this problem
is discussed in more detail later in the
report) and (3) structures that are not
one of the four major residential land
use categories examined. The data,
unless otherwise noted, are for roll year
2002, the last complete year for which
data are available.
Use of the individual county
property appraiser data allows us to
reasonably compare housing
characteristics in the counties with each
other. However, there are gaps and
limitations in these Department of
Revenue (DOR) data sets. Gaps occur
because in some counties, certain fields
of data are not included in the records
or are missing for specific property
types. For example, in many counties
the year built information or square
footage is missing for condominiums,
and some counties do not report sales
prices from more than five years ago.
In a few cases only one year of sales data
is reported. Limitations on the data can
occur for two reasons. First, only the
two most recent sales prices and year of
those sales are reported. Any time a
parcel sells, the oldest of the two sales is
lost. Therefore when examining the
county data, there are two potential
explanations for the increasing









s ing



^^B{2003h^^


frequency of sales over time. The first is
that sales really have increased over time,
and the second is that this increased
frequency is just a statistical anomaly due
to properties selling multiple times,
eliminating the older records.
A second limitation in the data is that
definitions vary somewhat across
counties; an example of this is square
footage. Property appraisers calculate and
use more than one measurement of
square footage in their appraisal process.
Thus, this characteristic can vary across
county and possibly over time within the
county. Another reason square footage
can vary is the presence of multiple
buildings on a parcel, which show up in
the value for square footage field. In the
past, Shimberg did not report square
footage values that appeared to vary from
the majority of the counties. However,
this year, in the interest ofproviding more
information, we are reporting these
values.' Another new feature to this year's
report is the reporting of real values (in
2002 dollars) for sale prices on single-
family homes, manufactured housing,
and condominiums.2
Another problem that has to be
addressed when creating the database is
that the data must be cleaned. For
example, any sales that are determined
to be a "non-arms-length" transaction (by
the DOR transaction code) are deleted.
Additionally, any observations with
obvious mispricing (due to data entry or
other error) or which are not considered
a sale for purposes of the report are


In an attempt to make the data as similar as possible, square footage values are only calculated and reported for
parcels with a single building.
The real value has adjusted the sales price to reflect inflation. Inflation reduces the purchasing power, so a dollar in
1990 is worth more than a dollar in 2002. Therefore the 1990 real sales price in 2002 dollars expresses what the
sale price would have been in 2002.
In the National Association of Realtors (NAR) Home Sales, the median sale price of existing single-family homes,
condos, and co-ops sold in each quarter are reported for the nine largest metropolitan areas in Florida. In
addition, the FloridaAssociation of Realtors (FAR) produces the Florida Home SalesReportthar contains information
on monthly sales volume and median sale prices for the 20 major metropolitan areas. While quite valuable, the
NAR and FAR reports do not contain information on characteristics other than sale price and volume, and in
addition are based only on MLS sales. Moreover, numerous counties are excluded.
The decennial US Census counts all manufactured housing, and therefore reports a drastically different number of
total housing units for some of the rural counties than the corresponding county property appraiser. This difference
is almost one hundred percent due to the difference in reported manufactured housing.


deleted. For example, the older of two
recent sale prices for a newly constructed
home is usually the sale of the lot; a price
not comparable to the sale price after the
home has been constructed. Finally, data
entry problems exist that have required
the development of screening rules to
eliminate information that falls outside
reasonable boundaries.
Despite these problems, the property
appraiser data provides information on
Florida's housing stock that is not
otherwise available. For example,
decennial Census data because of delays
due to its release and the fact that it is
only conducted once a decade. The
Census is also subject to inaccuracies in
evaluating housing unit characteristics
because it relies on the evaluation by the
occupants for estimates of numerous
variables such as property value and age.
Other sources, while current and
valuable, are subject to limitations of
geographic coverage or amount of
information available.3
The following section describes the
existing single-family housing stock in
Florida. Subsequent sections provide
detailed information on the
condominium market and the
multifamily housing market. Although
manufactured housing accounts for a
significant portion of residential housing
units in many rural counties, we are
unable to describe and discuss Florida's
manufactured housing stock because
comprehensive, accurate data are not
available from the property appraiser data







at our disposal. Accurate data on
manufactured housing is difficult to
obtain for several reasons. First, a
manufactured home is classified as real
property if the owner owns both the
home and the lot. It is these homes that
are included in the property appraiser
files. Other manufactured housing,
perhaps the larger share, is located on
rented sites and carry a tag from the
Division of Motor Vehicles.4 Further,
even combining these sources results in
data that are not consistent from year to
year. In addition to reporting problems,
possible causes of inconsistencies include
units not counted because of confusion
about their status, failure to renew a tag,
units placed on land and not reported to
the appraiser, or uncertainty about the
location of the unit (i.e. in a city or in
the unincorporated portion of a county).

3.2 Single-Family Housing

Summary data by county, with
aggregations to metropolitan and state
totals, are included in Table 3.1 (if the
data were not available on the county
property appraiser files for a county, a
"2)" is placed on the exhibit).
The single-family housing stock of
Florida totals almost 3.9 million units
and the total assessed value of these units
is $451.8 billion. Almost seventy-eight
percent of these units are occupied by
their owner; the remaining units are
renter-occupied. The mean age of
housing units in the state is 26 years, and
the average size is 1,941 square feet. The
number of single-family sales in 2001
totaled approximately 281,480, which is
equal to approximately 7.2 percent of the


total single-family housing stock in this
state.5 The median price of a 2001 sale
was $130,000. This is lower than both
the 2001 new median house price in the
U.S. of $187,500 and the 2001 existing
house price of $147,800.6
As shown in Figure 3.1, Florida's
housing is geographically concentrated.
The state's 21 metropolitan areas (MSAs)
are divided into "major" metropolitan
areas (6 MSAs) and "other" metropolitan
areas (15 MSAs). The major MSAs
include Ft. Lauderdale, Miami,
Jacksonville, Orlando, West Palm Beach-
Boca Raton, and Tampa-St. Petersburg-
Clearwater. A total of fifteen counties
are in major MSAs. The 15 other MSAs
include twenty counties. A total of 35
of Florida's 67 counties are therefore
found in metropolitan areas, with the
remaining 32 being non-metropolitan.7
These remaining 32 counties are
further categorized, as shown in the table,
into four regional groups: Northwest,
Northeast, Central, and South, according
to categories used by the University of
Florida's Bureau of Economic and
Business Research.
The totals and means for the state
reported above allow for the
determination of the standing of counties
and metropolitan areas relative to the
state, and for comparisons across counties
and metropolitan areas. The six major
MSAs contain approximately 2.3 million
single-family units and these units
comprise about 58 percent of the total
housing stock in the state. Over one-
quarter of the major MSA total,
comprising almost 17 percent of the
state, is found in the Tampa-St.
Petersburg-Clearwater MSA (which we


The number of sales depends on what classes of transactions are regarded as qualified sales. For example, the total
quoted here includes only sales that were arms-length transactions.
The sources for these national prices are: new single family U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Construction/Housing
Sales Survey; existing single family National Association of Realtors, Existing Home Sales Survey.
Multiple county MSAs are as follows: Daytona Beach MSA includes Flagler andVolusia Counties. Ft. Pierce-Port
St. Lucie MSA includes Martin and St. Lucie Counties. Jacksonville MSA includes Clay, Duval, Nassau and St.
Johns Counties. Orlando MSA includes Lake, Orange, Osceola and Seminole Counties. Pensacola MSA includes
Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties. Sarasota-Bradenton MSA includes Manatee and Sarasota Counties. Tallahassee
MSA includes Gadsden and Leon Counties. Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater MSA includes Hernando,
HIll I .1. Pasco and Pinellas Counties.









us ing



^^B{2003h^^


S-C


Figure 3.1 Percentage of State's Single-Family Housing Stock
Sunder 0.50%
0.50% to 0.99" 6
E 1.00%to 1.99U.
S2.00%to 3.99"
4.00%to 9.00"


" ,:









































Figure 3.2 Median 2001 Sales Price Single-Family Home


L 1C00 C-03 te I12J.355
m i C I i I 39







The State of Florida's Housing, 2003


Total
% of % Owner Assessed % of
Total Units State Occupied Value($mils) State

Florida 3,889,178 100.0 77.5 451,840 100.0

Ft. Lauderdale MSA
Broward County 350,089 9.0 80.9 48,199 10.7

Jacksonville MSA
Clay County 38,884 1.0 84.4 3,756 0.8
Duval County 211,076 5.4 80.4 19,464 4.3
Nassau County 14,093 0.4 77.7 1,832 0.4
St. Johns County 37,790 1.0 79.8 6,421 1.4
MSA total 301,843 7.8 80.7 31,473 7.0

Miami MSA
Miami-Dade County 320,112 8.2 77.6 43,936 9.7

Orlando MSA
Lake County 62,230 1.6 77.9 5,970 1.3
Orange County 219,670 5.6 77.7 25,786 5.7
Osceola County 51,857 1.3 64.6 5,132 1.1
Seminole County 105,448 2.7 83.1 12,462 2.8
MSA total 439,205 11.3 77.5 49,351 10.9

Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater MSA
Hernando County 46,101 1.2 79.2 3,656 0.8
Hillsborough County 258,341 6.6 82.3 25,802 5.7
Pasco County 106,353 2.7 79.3 8,443 1.9
Pinellas County 240,039 6.2 81.0 25,234 5.6
MSA total 650,834 16.7 81.1 63,135 14.0

West Palm Beach-Boca Raton MSA
Palm Beach County 199,462 5.1 79.5 39,172 8.7

Regional subtotal 2,261,545 58.1 79.7 275,266 60.9

Daytona Beach MSA
Flagler County 21,632 0.6 75.4 2,347 0.5
Volusa County 133,424 3.4 78.9 11,788 2.6
MSA total 155,056 4.0 78.4 14,134 3.1

Ft. Myers-Cape Coral MSA
Lee County 130,681 3.4 71.2 19,027 4.2

Ft. Pierce-Port St. Lucie MSA
Martin County 39,288 1.0 76.0 7,666 1.7
St. Lucia County 62,391 1.6 74.8 5,101 1.1
MSA total 101,679 2.6 75.3 12,767 2.8

Ft. Walton Beach MSA
Oskaloosa County 52,881 1.4 71.6 5,332 1.2

Gainesville MSA
Alachua County 47,910 1.2 79.0 4,219 0.9

Lakeland-Winter Haven MSA
Polk County 119,717 3.1 73.8 8,994 2.0

Melbourne-Titusville-Palm Bay MSA
Brevard County 148,411 3.8 80.9 13,328 2.9

Naples MSA
Collier County 58,450 1.5 68.8 16,292 3.6

Ocala MSA
Marion County 70,933 1.8 77.4 5,184 1.1














Total Just
Value
milsls)

519,470


56,796


4,066
22,581
2,219
7,535
36,401


53,752


6,178
28,453
5,372
13,860
53,862


3,984
30,398
9,442
30,672
74,496


45,787

321,094


2,542
13,178
15,720


21,437


8,647
5,402
14,050


5,595


4,713


10,057


15,010


19,934


5,645


% of
State

100.0


10.9


0.8
4.3
0.4
1.5
7.0


10.3


1.2
5.5
1.0
2.7
10.4


0.8
5.9
1.8
5.9
14.3


8.8

61.8


0.5
2.5
3.0


4.1


1.7
1.0
2.7


1.1


0.9


1.9


2.9


3.8


1.1


Average
Age

26


31


18
32
21
15
28


33


22
23
15
22
21


17
23
22
35
27


27

27


13
26
24


20


17
21
19


23


24


30


23


16


21


Relative
Age Index

1.00


1.19


0.69
1.23
0.81
0.58
1.08


1.27


0.85
0.88
0.58
0.85
0.81


0.65
0.88
0.85
1.35
1.04


1.04

1.04


0.50
1.00
0.92


0.77


0.65
0.81
0.73


0.88


0.92


1.15


0.88


0.62


0.81


Average
Size

1,914


1,927


2,042
1,787
2,037
2,283
1,894


1,882


1,538
1,937
1,897
2,140
1,925


2,277
1,871
1,744
1,695
1,813


2,236

1,910


2,135
1,531
1,614


2,847


1,939
1,565
1,712


1,946


1,894


2,296


1,617


1,928


1,544


New Units
Constructed
in 2001

80,034


2)


1,585
3,757
617
1,921
7,880


2,362


3,714
6,939
3,249
2,263
16,165


1,103
2)
3,591
1,819
6,513


3,886

32,920


1,518
3,101
4,619


5,644


2)
1,840
1,840


1,094


966


3,576


3,684


3,700


2,745


% of
State

100.0


2)


2.0
4.7
0.8
2.4
9.8


3.0


4.6
8.7
4.1
2.8
20.2


1.4
2)
4.5
2.3
8.1


4.9

41.1


1.9
3.9
5.8


7.1


2)
2.3
2)


1.4


1.2


4.5


4.6


4.6


3.4


Number of
2001 Sales

281,480


34,598


3,477
13,415
874
3,482
21,248


19,335


6,051
21,237
5,808
8,582
41,678


2,942
14,784
10,424
13,870
42,020


14,449

173,328


1,761
2)
1,761


12,142


3,289
4,638
7,927


3,892


3,386


8,377


10,546


5,223


5,165


Median 2001
Sale Price

130,000


165,000


124,000
117,000
163,250
177,250
127,300


158,000


121,000
134,000
121,500
141,000
131,000


85,000
125,000
102,000
124,750
117,000


171,900

138,000


112,100
2)
112,100


137,243


163,000
94,000
117,000


110,000


112,900


97,500


103,400


223,800


91,858










Total
% of % Owner Assessed % of
Total Units State Occupied Value($mils) State

Panama City MSA
Bay County 45,499 1.2 67.1 3,708 0.8

Pensacola MSA
Escambia County 85,737 2.2 75.0 5,760 1.3
Santa Rosa County 37,605 1.0 78.3 3,776 0.8
MSA total 123,342 3.2 76.0 9,536 2.1

Punta Gorda MSA
Charlotte County 54,702 1.4 72.9 5,721 1.3

Sarasota-Bradenton MSA
Manatee County 63,419 1.6 77.5 8,421 1.9
Sarasota County 105,329 2.7 75.2 16,077 3.6
MSA total 168,748 4.3 76.1 24,498 5.4

Tallahassee MSA
Gadsden County 9,193 0.2 76.0 454 0.1
Leon County 61,392 1.6 75.1 6,067 1.3
MSA total 70,585 1.8 75.2 6,522 1.4

Vero Beach
Indian River County 35,512 0.9 73.0 5,418 1.2

Regional subtotal 1,384,106 35.6 75.3 154,681 34.2

Northwest nonmetropolitan area
Calhoun County 2,472 0.1 74.4 98 0.0
Franklin County 5,391 0.1 44.0 736 0.2
Gulf County 5,111 0.1 55.2 522 0.1
Holmes County 3,204 0.1 75.2 136 0.0
Jackson County 9,733 0.3 72.6 461 0.1
Jefferson County 1,988 0.1 72.0 93 0.0
Liberty County 1,208 0.0 66.6 45 0.0
Macula County 4,777 0.1 70.3 337 0.1
Walton County 13,732 0.4 55.3 2,172 0.5
Washington County 4,038 0.1 71.6 184 0.0
NMA total 51,654 1.3 63.1 4,784 1.1

Northeast nonmetropolitan area
Baker County 3,032 0.1 84.7 181 0.0
Bradford County 5,043 0.1 75.5 287 0.1
Columbia County 10,640 0.3 78.2 657 0.1
Dixie County 2,475 0.1 61.6 103 0.0
Gilchrist County 1,776 0.0 74.4 100 0.0
Hamilton County 1,903 0.0 70.8 80 0.0
Lafayette County 812 0.0 75.5 37 0.0
Levy County 6,204 0.2 72.6 379 0.1
Madison County 2,997 0.1 70.7 128 0.0
Suwannee County 5,087 0.1 74.8 270 0.1
Taylor County 4,734 0.1 65.1 227 0.1
Union County 1,110 0.0 78.6 53 0.0
NMA total 45,813 1.2 74.0 2,502 0.6

Central nonmetropolitan area
Citrus County 41,660 1.1 79.5 3,070 0.7
Putnam County 15,429 0.4 72.6 927 0.2
Sumter County 16,251 0.4 77.3 1,321 0.3
NMA total 73,340 1.9 77.6 5,318 1.2

South nonmetropolitan area
De Soto County 5,071 0.1 71.0 304 0.1
Glades County 1,542 0.0 56.6 91 0.0
Hardee County 3,839 0.1 76.5 176 0.0
Hendry County 4,733 0.1 72.9 296 0.1
Highlands County 27,822 0.7 71.5 1,691 0.4
Monroe County 23,317 0.6 54.2 6,313 1.4
Okeechobee County 6,396 0.2 69.9 421 0.1
NMA total 72,720 1.9 65.8 9,291 2.1

Regional subtotal 243,527 6.3 70.3 21,894 4.8

34 1) Fewer than 25 parcels. 2) Data not available.










Total Just New Units
Value % of Average Relative Average Constructed % of Number of Median 2001
milsls) State Age Age Index Size in 2001 State 2001 Sales Sale Price


1,796


1,777
2,009
1,847


2,328


2,347
1,717
1,955


1,592
1,855
1,821


1,967


798


1,495
1,386
2,881


1,340


2,846
3,273
6,119


76
1,118
1,194


1,175


3,880


6,520
4,001
10,521


6,425


9,680
18,641
28,322


487
6,488
6,974


6,051

174,334


101
780
615
144
520
105
48
383
2,310
194
5,201


216
306
718
112
105
87
42
429
135
313
233
60
2,757


3,315
1,027
1,424
5,767


327
92
183
311
1,718
7,246
442
10,318

24,042


1.0 2,899


4,207
2,705
6,912


1.7 3,709


6,002
8,903
14,905


228
4,895
5,123


1.5 2,790

51.7 94,757


0.0 69
0.1 255
0.2 265
0.0 105
0.1 279
0.0 67
0.0 20
0.2 264
0.9 925
0.1 105
1.7 2,354


0.1 168
0.1 114
0.3 498
0.0 73
0.1 50
0.0 28
0.0 26
0.1 206
0.0 45
0.1 183
0.1 135
0.0 26
1.0 1,552


1.4 2,405
0.2 526
2.1 2,243
3.7 5,174


0.1 164
0.0 58
0.0 135
0.1 208
2) 1,727
0.4 1,760
0.2 263
2) 4,315

7.2 13,395


1,945 41,375


1,577 25
1,601 119
1,610 126
1,500 32
1,659 114
1,673 27
2) 12
1,596 162
1,905 721
1,551 56
2) 1,394


1,650 94
1,619 59
1,792 251
2) 16
1,644 48
1,579 19
1,563 17
1,649 117
1,527 26
1,590 90
1,556 63
1,703 23
2) 823


2,216 1,118
1,958 168
1,710 1,641
2,051 2,927


1,686 60
1,540 26
1,544 23
1,602 41
1,718 2)
1,551 314
1,596 131
1,629 595

1,782 5,739


107,000


98,100
114,900
105,000


112,500


149,000
142,900
145,000


81,000
114,900
113,500


115,000

119,900


62,500
145,500
131,500
47,500
71,000
74,500
1)
118,350
157,200
60,000
110,000


83,350
66,500
75,914
55,000
73,700
58,250
61,250
69,950
60,000
75,000
62,600
73,450
73,000


74,500
70,500
135,400
102,000


81,000
68,000
59,500
68,700
67,000
280,000
75,000
115,000

99,000









s ing



^^B{2003h^^


will refer to as Tampa Bay). The Orlando
MSA has 11 percent of the state's single-
family stock, the Ft. Lauderdale MSA
about 9 percent, and the Miami MSA
8.2 percent. Of single county MSAs,
Miami and Ft. Lauderdale have the
largest numbers of single-family housing
units in the state. Together, these two
counties contain over 17 percent of the
state's single-family units. Adding Palm
Beach County results in almost 23
percent of the state's single-family stock
being located in the these three southeast
Florida counties.
The 15 other MSAs contain 35.6
percent of the state's single-family
housing stock, while the 32 non-
metropolitan counties contain only 6.3
percent. The non-metropolitan counties
show the extremes of population
densities in the state. For example,
Lafayette County has fewer than 1,000
single-family units. Other counties with
less than 3,000 units include Calhoun,
Dixie, Gilchrist, Glades, Hamilton,
Jefferson, Liberty, Madison, and Union
Counties. These 11 counties combined
have only about one-half of one percent
of the total single-family housing units
in the state.
Based on property appraiser data, a
total of 80,034 single-family units were
constructed in the state in 2001.8 These
units increased the size of the housing
stock in the state by about 2 percent.
Even excluding Broward and
Hillsborough County, slightly more than
41 percent of the new units were
constructed in the six large metropolitan
areas, with over 20 percent in the
Orlando MSA and approximately 8
percent in the Tampa Bay MSA even
while excluding Hillsborough County.
Among counties in the smaller MSAs,
Brevard, Collier, Lee, Polk, and Sarasota
all had 4.1 percent or more of the state's
new construction. Lee County, with
5,644 new units, exceeded the level of
new construction in all of the


This value excludes new construction in Broward County, Highlands County, Fill I JI. County, and Martin
County where accurate construction numbers were unavailable.


metropolitan counties in the state except
Orange. The construction numbers
show growth in population in several of
the smaller MSAs.
The total assessed value (the property
appraiser's estimate of the value of a home
for the calculation of property taxes) of
single-family units in the state shows a
similar pattern. The total assessed value
of single-family units in the state is
approximately $451.8 billion and almost
61 percent of that total is found in the
major MSAs. The three southeast
Florida counties-Miami-Dade,
Broward, and Palm Beach-have 29
percent of the total assessed value. The
average assessed value of a single-family
housing unit in Florida is about
$116,000. Average assessed values range
from over $279,000 in Collier County
(Naples MSA) to about $49,000 in
Gadsden County (Tallahassee MSA)
among metropolitan counties and from
a high of over $271,000 in Monroe
County to a low of about $37,000 in
Liberty County among non-
metropolitan counties.
A relative age index is constructed to
compare the average age of housing units
in a county or MSA to the state total. A
problem with the age variable is that the
age of a unit is changed if significant
remodeling and renovations have been
completed on a unit to reflect the date
of those improvements. However,
assuming that improvements to a house
increase the longevity of the unit, then
the improvements may represent a
reasonable means to convey the age of
the stock. The age variable is also not
consistently recorded in all counties.
Counties or MSAs with an older housing
stock than Florida's average have a relative
age index greater than one. Areas with a
relatively young stock have an index less
than one. The housing stock in the major
MSAs is slightly older than the state
average, as the relative age index is 1.04
and the average age is 27 years (rounded)







as compared to the state's 26 year average.
For the other MSAs, the index is 0.88
with an average age of 23 years, and the
non-MSA counties had an age index of
0.96 with an average age of 25 years.
Comparisons at these high levels of
aggregation, however, mask significant
differences in individual MSAs and
counties. For example, with a relative
age index of 0.50, Flagler County in the
Daytona Beach MSA has the newest
housing stock in Florida. This reflects a
single-family housing stock in Flagler
with an average age of 13 years. Other
counties with relative age indexes of 0.75
or below include Clay, St. Johns, Osceola,
and Hernando Counties among major
MSA counties; Collier, Martin, and
Santa Rosa Counties among the other
MSAs; and Citrus, Sumter, and Walton
Counties in the non-metropolitan
category. Many of the counties with
newer housing stocks are coastal counties
that have experienced rapid growth;
others are suburban counties in growing
metropolitan areas. Citrus and Sumter
Counties are experiencing growth related
to major development targeted to
retirement populations
Single-family housing stocks that are
older than the state average are generally
found in large urban counties or in the
rural, interior counties with smaller
populations. The oldest single-family
stock is in Hamilton and Pinellas
County, with a relative age index of 1.384
and a mean age of 35 years. Other non-
metropolitan counties with a relative age
index of 1.25 or greater include Bradford,
Hardee, Holmes, Jackson, and Putnam.
Among the metropolitan counties, the
oldest housing stock is found in Pinellas
County with an average age of 35 years.
Miami-Dade (33 years), Duval (32
years), Gadsden (32 years), Polk (30
years), and Escambia (31 years) also have
relatively old housing stocks.
Counties with the largest number of
sales transactions9 in 2001 are, as


expected, the largest counties in
population. Approximately 62 percent
of the single-family transactions in the
state in 2001 were in the major MSA
counties, with 14.9 percent in the Tampa
Bay MSA and 14.8 percent in the
Orlando MSA. Among individual
counties Broward was the highest with
12.3 percent of the state total while
Orange had 7.5 percent and Miami-Dade
had 6.8 percent of Florida's 2001
transactions. Over 24 percent of
transactions in 2001 were in the three
southeast Florida counties--Miami-Dade,
Broward, and Palm Beach.
Over 33 percent of all sales in 2001
were in other MSA counties, while the
remaining 5 percent were in the non-
metropolitan counties. Lee County had
4.3 percent of the state's transactions in
2001. Brevard had 3.8 percent and,
Sarasota County had 3.1 percent.
The turnover rate measures the
percentage of total units sold in each area.
Units sold as a percentage of total units
in the large MSAs were 7.7 percent. The
sales in other MSAs equaled 6.9 percent
of total units; in the non-MSA counties
they were 5.5 percent. Turnover of single-
family housing units is clearly higher in
MSAs, than in non-MSA counties.
Counties with fewer than 100
transactions were small, rural counties
including Liberty, Lafayette, Union,
Hamilton, Madison, Gilchrist, Glades,
Jefferson, Calhoun, Dixie, Holmes,
Washington, Bradford, Taylor, Hardee,
De Soto, Baker, and Suwannee.
The highest single-family median sales
prices in 2001 were in Monroe
($280,000), Collier ($223,800), St. Johns
($177,250), and Palm Beach ($171,900)
Counties. Other counties with median
sales prices above $130,000 include
Broward, Nassau, Martin, Miami- Dade,
Walton, Manatee, Franklin, Sarasota,
Seminole, Lee, Sumter, Orange, and
Gulf. All the counties with high median
prices are coastal counties. Counties with


No sales data for single-family, condominium, or multi-family housing units are available for Volusia County in
2001. All: II reported sales data is reported as ifVolusia County had zero sales.







The State of Florida's Housing, 2003


Total Total Just
% of % Owner Assessed % of Value
Total Units State Occupied Value($mils) State milsls)



Florida 1,307,701 100.0 48.5 142,491 100.0 152,184

Ft. Lauderdale MSA
Broward County 208,878 16.0 56.1 14,989 10.5 16,673

Jacksonville MSA
Clay County 1,020 0.1 62.8 70 0 76
Duval County 7,887 0.6 59.2 752 0.5 902
Nassau County 2,767 0.2 17.4 706 0.5 731
St. Johns County 8,793 0.7 28.8 1,346 0.9 1,445
MSA total 20,467 1.6 40.6 2,873 2.0 3,154

Miami MSA
Miami-Dade County 277,954 21.3 53.1 30,393 21.3 32,391

Orlando MSA
Lake County 2,728 0.2 55.6 229 0.2 233
Orange County 32,636 2.5 31.3 4,288 3.0 4,381
Osceola County 3,689 0.3 9.8 394 0.3 395
Seminole County 8,205 0.6 59.3 449 0.3 482
MSA total 47,258 3.6 35.9 5,360 3.8 5,491

Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater MSA
Hernando County 782 0.1 53.1 36 0 36
Hillsborough County 22,106 1.7 57.9 1,479 1.0 1,627
Pasco County 10,866 0.8 53.5 523 0.4 550
Pinellas County 89,997 6.9 53.0 7,676 5.4 8,477
MSA total 123,751 9.5 53.9 9,714 6.8 10,691

West Palm Beach-Boca Raton MSA
Palm Beach County 270,214 20.7 56.5 28,895 20.3 30,689

Regional subtotal 948,522 72.5 53.7 92,223 64.7 99,089


Daytona Beach MSA
Flagler County 1,736 0.1 35.0 203 0.1 210
Volusia County 22,909 1.8 32.2 2,447 1.7 2,598
MSA total 24,645 1.9 32.4 2,650 1.9 2,809

Ft. Myers-Cape Coral MSA
Lee County 52,861 4.0 33.5 7,827 5.5 8,130

Ft. Pierce-Port St. Lucie MSA
Martin County 13,213 1.0 49.9 1,025 0.7 1,062
St. Lucie County 11,887 0.9 37.5 1,175 0.8 1,241
MSA total 25,100 1.9 44.0 2,199 1.5 2,302

Ft. Walton Beach MSA
Okaloosa County 9,690 0.7 10.0 1,685 1.2 1,708

Gainesville MSA
Alachua County 3,181 0.2 47.7 166 0.1 175

Lakeland-Winter Haven MSA
Polk County 6,734 0.5 37.2 294 0.2 296

Melbourne-Titusville-Palm Bay MSA
Brevard County 25,177 1.9 44 1,955 1.4 2,089

Naples MSA
Collier County 75,634 5.8 29.3 14,280 10 15,087















New Units Median
% of Average Constructed % of Number of % of 2001
State Age in 2001 State 2001 Sales State Sale Price


100.0


11.0


0.1
0.6
0.5
0.9
2.1


21.3


0.2
2.9
0.3
0.3
3.6


0
1.1
0.4
5.6
7.0


20.2

65.1



0.1
1.7
1.8


5.3


0.7
0.8
1.5


1.1


0.1


0.2


1.4


9 9


15,611


2)


6
2)
99
2)
105


2)


16
2)
261
102
379


13
2)
4
192
209


6,536

7,229



81
2)
81


2,207


2)
54
54


2)


0


2)


472


3,812


100.0


2)


0.0
2)
0.6
2)
0.7


2)


0.1
2)
1.7
0.7
2.4


0.1
2)
0.0
1.2
1.3


41.9

46.3



0.5
2)
0.5


14.1


2)
0.3
0.3


2)


0


2)


3.0


24.4


127,088


18,712


104
392
196
1,048
1,740


32,711


224
2,358
375
898
3,855


72
2,163
977
7,931
11,143


25,777

93,938



233
2)
233


5,917


1,224
1,154
2,378


947


378


518


2,200


7,196


100.0


14.7


0.1
0.3
0.2
0.8
1.4


25.7


0.2
1.9
0.3
0.7
3.0


0.1
1.7
0.8
6.2
8.8


20.3

73.9



0.2
2)
0.2


4.7


1.0
0.9
1.9


0.7


0.3


0.4


1.7


5.7


106,000


71,000


66,750
117,200
244,750
147,000
136,000


116,000


61,150
69,000
100,000
73,500
72,900


66,750
81,000
51,900
75,000
73,900


127,837

99,000



144,000
2)
144,000


135,000


70,000
100,500
76,000


214,900


71,500


55,000


85,000


155,000







The State of Florida's Housing, 2003




Total Total Just
% of % Owner Assessed % of Value
Total Units State Occupied Value($mils) State milsls)

Ocala MSA
Marion County 5,949 0.5 66.8 320 0.2 328

Panama City MSA
Bay County 10,887 0.8 9.4 1,208 0.8 1,225

Pensacola MSA
Escambia County 4,511 0.3 23.5 562 0.4 576
Santa Rosa County 1,315 0.1 20 215 0.2 217
MSA total 5,826 0.4 22.7 777 0.5 793

Punta Gorda MSA
Charlotte County 11,283 0.9 31.8 1,315 0.9 1,388

Sarasota-Bradenton MSA
Manatee County 23,632 1.8 50.4 2,395 1.7 2,577
Sarasota County 44,790 3.4 41.8 7,942 5.6 8,704
MSA total 68,422 5.2 44.7 10,337 7.3 11,281

Tallahassee MSA
Leon County 729 0.1 24.7 31 0 32

Vero Beach
Indian River County 11,883 0.9 41.9 1,708 1.2 1,833

Regional subtotal
338,001 25.8 35.7 46,752 32.8 49,474

Northwest nonmetropolitan area
Franklin County 37 0 8.1 5 0 5
Gulf County 37 0 5.4 7 0 7
Wakulla County 97 0 17.5 9 0 9
Walton County 8,423 0.6 7.4 1,597 1.1 1,610
NMA Total 8,594 0.7 7.5 1,618 1.1 1,631

Northeast nonmetropolitan area
Bradford County 18 0 88.9 1 0 1
Columbia County 46 0 71.7 3 0 3
Levy County 198 0 3 16 0 16
Taylor County 23 0 4.3 2 0 2
NMA Total 285 0 19.6 22 0 23

Central nonmetropolitan area
Citrus County 1,471 0.1 42.7 76 0.1 79
Putnam County 141 0 34.8 9 0 9
Sumter County 106 0 42.5 4 0 4
NMA Total 1,718 0.1 42 89 0.1 92

South nonmetropolitan area
De Soto County 554 0 42.8 35 0 36
Glades County 32 0 25 2 0 2
Hardee County 218 0 33.5 8 0 8
Hendry County 143 0 21.7 8 0 9
Highlands County 1,144 0.1 42 50 0 50
Monroe County 8,332 0.6 16 1,677 1.2 1,763
Okeechobee County 158 0 25.3 6 0 6
NMA Total 10,581 0.8 20.9 1,787 1.3 1,874

Regional subtotal 21,178 1.6 17.1 3,516 2.5 3,621

1) Fewer than 25 parcels.
2) Data not available.















% of Average
State Age


Constructed
in 2001


New Units Median
% of Number of % of 2001
State 2001 Sales State Sale Price


445


1,161


592
44
636


0.4 58,000


0.9 127,600


174,900
74,500
160,550


0.9 1,146


2,309
4,006
6,315


119


1.3 1,165


146


226
843
1,069


7


203


8,342


10
0
2)
2)
10


2)
0
18
2)
18


0
0
2)
0


2)
0
12
0
2)
2)
0
12

40


0.9 83,000


104,900
134,900
122,500


0.1 68,500


0.9 116,000


24.2 125,500


1)
1)
128,060
215,000
211,500


0
1)
1)
0
1)


64,500
1)
1)
64,250


80,900
1)
1)
1)
52,000
179,250
1)
145,000


0.3 2,396


30,754


3
2
31
1,087
1,123


0
5
6
0
11


114
22
8
144


98
3
10
8
127
850
22
1,118


1.9 171,315









. S The


low median prices include a number
with median prices below $60,000 in
2001: Hardee ($59,500), Hamilton
($58,250), Dixie ($55,000), and
(Holmes ($47,500).
As shown in Figure 3.2, the sales price
data further illustrate the differences
between urban and rural counties and
between coastal and non-coastal


Figure 3.3 Percentage of State's Condominium Stock

m 0%
0 0.01%to 2.99%
3% to 5.99%
R % 6%to 8.99%
= 9%to 21.3%


counties. The highest mean prices in
2001 are in coastal counties, several of
which are not major urban counties (for
example, Collier). At the other extreme,
counties with the lowest mean house
prices are generally rural, slow growing,
and located in the interior of the state.


3.3 Condominiums


The role of condominiums in
providing housing in a county is another
indicator of the differences in housing
stock across counties. Table 3.2 contains
summary information on the state's stock
of condominiums. As expected,
condominiums are an important source
of housing in coastal counties where a
number of retirees live, but not in
interior counties. Summing across
counties indicates that there were
1,307,701 condominium-housing units
in the state in 2002. 48.5 percent of


.; y

condominiums across the state. In total,
the non-MSA counties have less than 2.0
percent of the total condominiums in the
state, and almost 80 percent of these are
found in two counties: Monroe and
Walton.


Data on the average size (square footage) of the condominium stock is not reported because of variations in
reported data.


these units are owner-occupied, much less
than the 77.5 percent owner-occupied
percentage found in the single-family
stock. A total of 757,046 units, or 58
percent of condominium units in the
state, are located in three southeast
Florida counties: Miami-Dade, Broward,
and Palm Beach. Figure 3.3 shows the
geographical distribution of







Other coastal metropolitan counties
have a much smaller stock of
condominium units than the three
southeast counties, but condominiums
still play a major role in the provision of
housing in those counties. For example,
Collier County's 75,634 condominium
units far exceed the 58,450 single-family
housing units in the county.
Condominium units also exceed single-
family units in Palm Beach County.
Other counties with large numbers of


years. Among the major metropolitan
counties, Pinellas has the highest mean
age of 24 years for condominium units.
The number of condominium sales
in the state totaled 127,088 units in
2001. Of these over 25 percent occurred
in Miami-Dade County, 20 percent in
Palm Beach County, and over 14 percent
in Broward County. These three
southeast counties accounted for about
61 percent of all condominium
transactions in the state.


.I1 I


p -'-~


Figure 3.4 Median 2001 Sales Price for Condominiums


SNo Condominiums
1 under $75,000
S$75,000 to $99,999
$ $100,000 to $124,999
S $125,000 to $244,750
I NA


condominiums are Lee, Manatee,
Pinellas, Orange and Sarasota.
Discussion of the characteristics of
condominiums in the state is limited by
the lack of data in a number of the data
fields in some counties. These fields
include year built, age, and price. The
following description is based on the
available data.
We do not report a mean age for
condominium units due to limited data
for the individual counties. However, we
can compare average age in 36 ofFlorida's
counties, and in 30 of the 36, mean age
for condominiums is less than or equal
to the mean age for single-family units.
Some of the newest condominium stocks
are located in non-metropolitan counties
including Franklin, with a mean age of 3


Figure 3.4 shows that median sales
price for condominiums vary widely
across counties. The median price of
condominium units sold in the state in
2001 was $106,000. Counties with
median prices above $200,000 were the
$244,750 in Nassau County, $214,900
in Okaloosa County, and $215,000 in
Walton County. These are coastal
counties and are not part of major MSAs.
The relatively high price of portions of
the condominium stock in Florida
appears to reflect the steep premium paid
for the ocean accessibility that is an
attribute of many condominiums in
coastal settings and the retirement
clientele for the units.10 Condominium
units in the larger counties have lower
median sales prices, including $71,000


Total number of sales in the state was calculated by treating the counties with missing data as having zero sales.







The State of Florida's Housing, 2003





Total Total
Total % of Assessed % of Just
Complexes State Value ($m) State Value ($m)

Florida 155,974 100 18,157 100 19,157

Ft. Lauderdale MSA
Broward County 19,524 12.5 2,764 15.2 2,934

Jacksonville MSA
Clay County 277 0.2 27 0.1 27
Duval County 4,402 2.8 453 2.5 485
Nassau County 316 0.2 54 0.3 59
St. Johns County 1,840 1.2 274 1.5 326
MSA total 6,835 4.4 808 4.5 897

Miami MSA
Miami-Dade County 32,263 20.7 4,531 25 4,751

Orlando MSA
Lake County 1,176 0.8 101 0.6 101
Orange County 10,411 6.7 787 4.3 813
Osceola County 839 0.5 83 0.5 84
Seminole County 1,130 0.7 94 0.5 96
MSA total 13,556 8.7 1,065 5.9 1,093

Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater MSA
Hernando County 402 0.3 36 0.2 37
Hillsborough County 5,222 3.3 453 2.5 464
Pasco County 3,822 2.5 269 1.5 295
Pinellas County 13,506 8.7 1,605 8.8 1,771
MSA total 22,952 14.7 2,363 13 2,566

West Palm Beach-Boca Raton MSA
Palm Beach County 11,315 7.3 1,341 7.4 1,418

Regional subtotal
106,445 68.2 12,873 70.9 13,659

Daytona Beach MSA
Flagler County 387 0.2 45 0.2 46
Volusia County 8,889 5.7 653 3.6 693
MSA total 9,276 5.9 698 3.8 739

Ft. Myers-Cape Coral MSA
Lee County 5,609 3.6 631 3.5 660

Ft. Pierce-Port St. Lucie MSA
Martin County 967 0.6 87 0.5 89
St. Lucie County 1,478 0.9 97 0.5 98
MSA total 2,445 1.6 185 1 187

Ft. Walton Beach MSA
Okaloosa County 751 0.5 89 0.5 90

Gainesville MSA
Alachua County 1,778 1.1 121 0.7 122

Lakeland-Winter Haven MSA
Polk County 4,344 2.8 272 1.5 275

Melbourne-Titusville-Palm Bay MSA
Brevard County 2,952 1.9 318 1.8 333

Naples MSA
Collier County 1,929 1.2 284 1.6 295

Ocala MSA
Marion County 1,139 0.7 81 0.4 82

Panama City MSA
Bay County 780 0.5 78 0.4 78













New Complexes
% of Average Relative Constructed % of Number of
State Age Age Index in 2001 State 2001 Sales

100 36 1.00 555 100 9,286


15.3 38 1.06 2) 2) 1,688


0.1 2) 2) 2) 2) 0
2.5 48 1.33 2 0.4 215
0.3 28 0.78 2 0.4 18
1.7 25 0.69 17 3.1 71
4.7 41 1.14 21 4 304


24.8 42 1.17 54 9.7 1,931


0.5 36 1.00 9 1.6 80
4.2 25 0.69 11 2 815
0.4 25 0.69 8 1.4 39
0.5 29 0.81 6 1.1 45
5.7 26 0.72 34 6.1 979


0.2 18 0.50 12 2.2 18
2.4 28 0.78 2) 2) 286
1.5 31 0.86 4 0.7 140
9.2 51 1.42 13 2.3 871
13.4 42 1.17 29 5.2 1,315


7.4 41 1.14 10 1.8 569


71.3 39 1.08 148 26.8 6,786


0.2 17 0.47 34 6.1 46
3.6 26 0.72 88 15.8 2)
3.9 25 0.69 122 21.9 46


3.4 26 0.72 89 16 479


0.5 22 0.61 2) 2) 55
0.5 36 1.00 1 0.2 99
1 31 0.86 1 0.2 154


0.5 30 0.83 3 0.5 17


0.6 29 0.81 6 1.1 73


1.4 30 0.83 26 4.7 239


1.7 39 1.08 18 3.2 132


1.5 26 0.72 34 6.1 72


0.4 25 0.69 5 0.9 83


0.4 21 0.58 10 1.8 47







The State of Florida's Housing, 2003




Total Total
Total % of Assessed % of Just
Complexes State Value ($m) State Value ($m)
Pensacola MSA
Escambia County 1,839 1.2 148 0.8 154
Santa Rosa County 608 0.4 60 0.3 60
MSA total 2,447 1.6 209 1.1 215

Punta Gorda MSA
Charlotte County 1,006 0.6 135 0.7 143

Sarasota-Bradenton MSA
Manatee County 4,530 2.9 534 2.9 564
Sarasota County 2,277 1.5 319 1.8 327
MSA total 6,807 4.4 853 4.7 891

Tallahassee MSA
Gadsden County 11 0 9 0 9
Leon County 2,002 1.3 188 1 189
MSA total 2,013 1.3 197 1.1 198

Vero Beach
Indian River County 762 0.5 82 0.5 83

Regional subtotal
44,038 28.2 4,232 23.3 4,390

Northwest nonmetropolitan area
Calhoun County 3 0 2 0 2
Franklin County 16 0 5 0 5
Gulf County 2 0 0 0 0
Holmes County 6 0 1 0 1
Jackson County 65 0 15 0.1 15
Jefferson County 12 0 2 0 2
Wakulla County 18 0 2 0 2
Walton County 48 0 8 0 8
Washington County 14 0 3 0 3
NMA Total 184 0.1 38 0.2 39

Northeast nonmetropolitan area
Baker County 25 0 4 0 4
Bradford County 16 0 1 0 1
Columbia County 209 0.1 20 0.1 20
Dixie County 3 0 0 0 0
Gilchrist County 8 0 1 0 1
Hamilton County 17 0 5 0 5
Lafayette County 4 0 0 0 0
Levy County 68 0 6 0 6
Madison County 41 0 5 0 5
Suwannee County 44 0 3 0 3
Taylor County 7 0 5 0 5
Union County 8 0 1 0 1
NMA Total 450 0.3 51 0.3 51

Central nonmetropolitan area
Citrus County 373 0.2 27 0.1 27
Putnam County 133 0.1 8 0 9
Sumter County 75 0 5 0 6
NMA Total 581 0.4 41 0.2 42

South nonmetropolitan area
De Soto County 175 0.1 12 0.1 12
Glades County 35 0 2 0 2
Hardee County 229 0.1 11 0.1 12
Hendry County 381 0.2 28 0.2 28
Highlands County 712 0.5 38 0.2 38
Monroe County 2,619 1.7 822 4.5 876
Okeechobee County 125 0.1 10 0.1 10
NMA Total 4,276 2.7 922 5.1 977

Regional subtotal
5,491 3.5 1,053 5.8 1,109
1) Fewer than 25 parcels.
46 2) Data not available.













% of
State

0.8
0.3
1.1


Average
Age

34
21
31


New Complexes
Relative Constructed
Age Index in 2001


0.7 28


% of Number of
State 2001 Sales


2.5 92


0.4 30


3.4 54


388 69.8 2,169


5.8 2)


(S Sctin 31 & 3-4eg~rdin dta immiatins


1 00


3 4 331







The State of Florida's Housing, 2003




Total Total
Total % of Assessed % of Just
Complexes State Value ($m) State Value ($m)
Florida
Florida 14,000 100 33,201 100 33,209

Ft. Lauderdale MSA
Broward County 1,822 13 5,285 15.9 5,289

Jacksonville MSA
Clay County 42 0.3 165 0.5 165
Duval County 546 3.9 2,050 6.2 2,050
Nassau County 37 0.3 42 0.1 43
St. Johns County 35 0.3 170 0.5 170
MSA total 660 4.7 2,428 7.3 2,428

Miami MSA
Miami-Dade County 3,893 27.8 6,228 18.8 6,230

Orlando MSA
Lake County 115 0.8 167 0.5 167
Orange County 739 5.3 3,769 11.4 3,770
Osceola County 92 0.7 422 1.3 422
Seminole County 242 1.7 1,326 4 1,326
MSA total 1,188 8.5 5,684 17.1 5,684

Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater MSA
Hernando County 46 0.3 39 0.1 39
Hillsborough County 755 5.4 3,202 9.6 3,202
Pasco County 132 0.9 177 0.5 177
Pinellas County 783 5.6 1,755 5.3 1,755
MSA total 1,716 12.3 5,173 15.6 5,173

West Palm Beach-Boca Raton MSA
Palm Beach County 800 5.7 2,624 7.9 2,624

Regional subtotal 10,079 72 27,422 82.6 27,429

Daytona Beach MSA
Flagler County 6 0 8 0 8
Volusia County 496 3.5 419 1.3 419
MSA total 502 3.6 427 1.3 427

Ft. Myers-Cape Coral MSA
Lee County 175 1.3 562 1.7 562

Ft. Pierce-Port St. Lucie MSA
Martin County 62 0.4 114 0.3 114
St. Lucie County 67 0.5 101 0.3 101
MSA total 129 0.9 215 0.6 215

Ft. Walton Beach MSA
Okaloosa County 146 1 136 0.4 136

Gainesville MSA
Alachua County 392 2.8 625 1.9 625

Lakeland-Winter Haven MSA
Polk County 280 2 302 0.9 302

Melbourne-Titusville-Palm Bay MSA
Brevard County 269 1.9 544 1.6 544

Naples MSA
Collier County 100 0.7 522 1.6 522

Ocala MSA
Marion County 87 0.6 126 0.4 126

Panama City MSA
Bay County 120 0.9 124 0.4 124













New Complexes
% of Average Relative Constructed % of Number of
State Age Age Index in 2001 State 2001 Sales

100.0 30 1.00 183 100.0 643


15.9 34 1.13 2) 2) 119


0.5 2) 2) 2) 2) 2)
6.2 28 0.93 13 7.1 19
0.1 21 0.70 4 2.2 2
0.5 14 0.47 1 0.5 2)
7.3 27 0.90 18 9.8 21


18.8 38 1.27 26 14.2 224


0.5 21 0.70 2 1.1 5
11.4 22 0.73 16 8.7 30
1.3 15 0.50 6 3.3 1
4 18 0.60 10 5.5 4
17.1 21 0.70 34 18.6 40


0.1 16 0.53 3 1.6 2)
9.6 23 0.77 2) 2) 36
0.5 22 0.73 2 1.1 5
5.3 37 1.23 3 1.6 57
15.6 29 0.97 8 4.4 98


7.9 29 0.97 21 11.5 16

82.6 32 1.07 107 58.5 518


0 1) 1) 1 0.5 2)
1.3 39 1.30 4 2.2 2)
1.3 39 1.30 5 2.7 2)


1.7 22 0.73 10 5.5 9


0.3 23 0.77 2) 2) 3
0.3 25 0.83 4 2.2 4
0.6 24 0.80 4 2.2 7


0.4 22 0.73 3 1.6 1


1.9 22 0.73 7 3.8 3


0.9 27 0.90 0 0.0 10


1.6 29 0.97 3 1.6 10


1.6 16 0.53 7 3.8 2)


0.4 24 0.80 0 0.0 1


0.4 22 0.73 0 0.0 2







The State of Florida's Housing, 2003




Total Total
Total % of Assessed % of Just
Complexes State Value ($m) State Value ($m)
Pensacola MSA
Escambia County 123 0.9 264 0.8 264
Santa Rosa County 24 0.2 27 0.1 27
MSA total 147 1.1 291 0.9 291

Punta Gorda MSA
Charlotte County 25 0.2 53 0.2 53

Sarasota-Bradenton MSA
Manatee County 116 0.8 395 1.2 395
Sarasota County 532 3.8 467 1.4 467
MSA total 648 4.6 863 2.6 863

Tallahassee MSA
Gadsden County 47 0.3 4 0 4
Leon County 348 2.5 647 1.9 647
MSA total 395 2.8 651 2 651

Vero Beach
Indian River County 42 0.3 98 0.3 98

Regional subtotal
3,457 24.7 5,538 16.7 5,539

Northwest nonmetropolitan area
Calhoun County 4 0 1 0 1
Franklin County 25 0.2 5 0 5
Gulf County 5 0 4 0 4
Holmes County 6 0 3 0 3
Jackson County 15 0.1 3 0 3
Jefferson County 7 0.1 2 0 2
Wakulla County 1 0 1 0 1
Walton County 60 0.4 20 0.1 20
Washington County 2 0 1 0 1
NMA Total 125 0.9 40 0.1 40

Northeast nonmetropolitan area
Baker County 1 0 1 0 1
Bradford County 16 0.1 10 0 10
Columbia County 24 0.2 22 0.1 22
Dixie County 6 0 2 0 2
Gilchrist County 1 0 0 0 0
Lafayette County 1 0 1 0 1
Levy County 11 0.1 6 0 6
Madison County 8 0.1 3 0 3
Suwannee County 15 0.1 9 0 9
Taylor County 2 0 1 0 1
Union County 4 0 1 0 1
NMA Total 89 0.6 56 0.2 56

Central nonmetropolitan area
Citrus County 48 0.3 19 0.1 19
Putnam County 29 0.2 26 0.1 26
Sumter County 47 0.3 8 0 8
NMA Total 124 0.9 53 0.2 53

South nonmetropolitan area
De Soto County 32 0.2 13 0 13
Glades County 4 0 1 0 1
Hardee County 8 0.1 5 0 5
Hendry County 14 0.1 7 0 7
Highlands County 56 0.4 26 0.1 26
Monroe County 10 0.1 39 0.1 39
Okeechobee County 2 0 1 0 1
NMA Total 126 0.9 92 0.3 92

Regional subtotal
464 3.3 241 0.7 241

1) Fewer than 25 parcels.
2) Data not available.













New Complexes
% of Average Relative Constructed % of Number of
State Age Age Index in 2001 State 2001 Sales

0.8 23 0.77 0 0.0 2)
0.1 1) 1) 0 0.0 2)
0.9 23 0.73 0 0.0 2)


0.2 26 0.87 3 1.6 2


1.2 26 0.87 2 1.1 3
1.4 26 0.87 0 0.0 20
2.6 26 0.87 2 1.1 23


0 28 0.93 1 0.5 2)
1.9 26 0.87 24 13.1 41
2 26 0.87 25 13.7 41


0.3 18 0.60 2 1.1 1


16.7 27 0.90 71 38.8 110


0 1) 1) 0 0.0 2)
0 22 0.73 0 0.0 2)
0 1) 1) 0 0.0 2)
0 1) 1) 0 0.0 2)
0 1) 1) 0 0.0 2)
0 1) 1) 1 0.5 1
0 1) 1) 0 0.0 2)
0.1 11 0.37 1 0.5 1
0 1) 1) 0 0.0 2)
0.1 2) 0.53 2 1.1 2


0 1) 1) 0 0.0 2)
0 1) 1) 0 0.0 2)
0.1 1) 1) 2 1.1 1
0 1) 1) 0 0.0 2)
0 1) 1) 0 0.0 2)
0 1) 1) 0 0.0 2)
0 1) 1) 0 0.0 2)
0 1) 1) 0 0.0 2)
0 1) 1) 0 0.0 2)
0 1) 1) 0 0.0 2)
0 1) 1) 0 0.0 2)
0.2 2) 0.80 2 1.1 1


0.1 18 0.60 0 0.0 2)
0.1 19 0.63 1 0.5 2)
0 28 0.93 0 0.0 6
0.2 22 0.73 1 0.5 6


0 22 0.73 0 0.0 1
0 1) 1) 0 0.0 2)
0 1) 1) 0 0.0 2)
0 1) 1) 0 0.0 2)
0.1 24 0.80 2) 2) 5
0.1 1) 1) 0 0.0 2)
0 1) 1) 0 0.0 2)
0.3 24 0.80 0 0.0 6


0.7 2) 0.73 5 2.7 15









s ing



^^B{2003h^^


in Broward, $81,000 in Hillsborough,
$116,000 in Miami-Dade, and $69,000
in Orange County. While these counties
have high priced units, the medians
indicate a broader market for
condominium units.

3.4 Multifamily Housing

The county property appraiser data
used in this report do not allow an
accounting for the number of units in
multifamily rental structures, as only
information on the structures (parcels)
is reported. It is this information that is
summarized below. We divide the
multifamily stock, consistent with the
appraiser data, into two categories:
complexes with less than 10 units and
complexes with 10 or more units.
Table 3.3 contains summary
information on the state's stock of
multifamily properties containing fewer
than 10 units. There are about 156,000
multifamily properties that contain fewer
than 10 units in the state of Florida.
Approximately 68 percent of these are
found in the six major metropolitan
areas, with another almost 28 percent
located in other metropolitan areas.
Only 3.5 percent of these small
multifamily complexes are found in non-
MSA counties. Almost 21 percent of the
units in this category are found in Miami-
Dade County. Only nine of the 31 non-
MSA counties have more than 100 such
complexes, with Monroe having over 61
percent of the non-MSA total. Other
non-MSA counties with more than 100
properties were Columbia, Citrus,
Putnam, DeSoto, Hardee, Hendry,
Highlands and Okeechobee Counties.
These numbers again point to the
differences that are observed between the
urban, coastal counties and the rural,
interior counties of Florida. As with
condominium units, which are also likely
found in multifamily structures, it is
apparent that urban and coastal counties
are the predominant settings for such
structures while the rural and interior


counties are characterized by a largely
single-family housing stock.
The mean age of multifamily
complexes containing 9 or fewer units
is 36 years for the state. Counties with
the oldest average ages (and at least 100
properties) include Duval (48), Miami-
Dade (42), Monroe (42), and Pinellas
(51). Counties with more than 100
properties and a relative age index of
below 0.6 (the state index is 1.0) include
Bay, Flagler, Hernando, and Santa Rosa.
There are few sales of multifamily
properties of less than 10 units relative
to single-family units, as there were only
9,286 small multifamily properties sold
across the state in 200111. Miami-Dade
and Broward Counties combined to have
almost 39 percent of the sales in the state,
and 73 percent of all sales were in major
MSA areas.
Table 3.4 contains information on
multifamily complexes with 10 or more
units. With a total of 14,000 complexes
in the state, there are about 9 percent as
many of these larger complexes as of
complexes with less than 10 units, but
these complexes undoubtedly comprise
more total units than the smaller
complexes. About 28 percent of these
larger complexes are located in Miami-
Dade County, with 13 percent in
Broward County and 12.3 percent in the
Tampa Bay MSA. The six major MSAs
contain approximately 72 percent of all
complexes of this type. The other MSAs
contain almost 25 percent of the state
total, with Volusia, Alachua, Leon, and
Sarasota Counties having more than 300
complexes. The Alachua and Leon
numbers reflect the concentration of
college students in those communities.
Non-MSA counties contain only 3.3
percent of the state's stock of larger
apartment complexes.
The average age of these larger
complexes is 30 years. Miami-Dade (38
years), Pinellas (37 years), and Volusia
(39 years) Counties have relatively old
stocks of larger complexes. At 21
years, the Orlando MSA has the






youngest stock of such complexes
among the six major MSAs.
There were 183 complexes of greater
than 10 units constructed in 2001.
About 59 percent of this construction
occurred in the six major MSAs
including over 18 percent in the Orlando
MSA. Sales of existing complexes in this
category totaled 643 in 2001, with
approximately 35 percent in Miami-
Dade County and over 80 percent in the
major MSAs.


economic output, earnings, and
employment. Using the appropriate
RIMS II multipliers, and assuming the
80,034 new single-family units have an
average value of $130,000, this
construction creates 391,206 jobs, has an
economic output impact of almost $22
billion, and creates $7.4 billion in
earnings.12Assuming an average millage
rate of 17.12 for the state this new
construction generates approximately
$178 million in local taxes.


3.5 Impact of Housing on the 3.6 Summary
Florida Economy


There are a number of ways in which
the impact of housing on the Florida
economy might be measured. For
example, we might examine the number
of jobs created in the construction and
related industries, the payroll on those
jobs, or the materials cost of a housing
unit. We examine two simple measures.
First, in 2001 there were 281,480 sales
of single family housing units (new and
existing). With an average sales price of
$130,000, these transactions total over
$36.6 billion in sales. This figure is the
basis from which transaction fees, transfer
taxes, mortgage fees, purchases of new
furnishings and equipment, and other
expenditures flowing into the economy
are generated. Second, the total assessed
value of the single family housing stock
in the state was over $451 billion in 2001.
This figure is the basis for property taxes
as well as a measure of the wealth of
households. The figure does not include
condominiums, multifamily rental
structures, or manufactured housings.
The U.S. Department of Commerce
Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) has
created a Regional Input-Output
Modeling System (RIMS II) which is
used to analyze economic impacts. The
RIMS II system allows economic impacts
to be estimated for three categories,


The county property appraiser data
provides a wealth of data on
characteristics of the housing stock across
the state. The county-by-county and
MSA summaries clearly show differences
in the importance of single-family
properties, condominiums, and
multifamily properties. Also apparent are
differences across the state in the age and
size of units. Finally, there are significant
differences in the numbers of
transactions each year and in the median
values of properties. The differences
show that the state might be
characterized as two states when thinking
about the housing market, with the large
urban and coastal counties at one
extreme and the small, rural inland
counties at the other.


For a more detailed discussion of the RIMS II approach and the economic impact of real estate, see The Impact of
Real Estate on the Florida Economy 2003 available from the Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing or online
1. I ll .. ,1 I ,,..I .,il 1 p)orts/index.htm l).



















Revised February 2004


Due to a mathematical error, the
Historic Affordability Index and County
Affordability Index tables in the 2003
State of Florida s Housing contain
incorrect information for 30 counties.
The corrected tables are


Table 4.1 Historic Affordability
Index County Affordability Index
Table 4.2 County Affordability
Index and Rank


This error changes the level, but not
the trend, of the affordability numbers
and changes the rank of some counties,
but the overall conclusions drawn in the
report remain the same. housing afford-
ability decreased in Florida last year due
to the reasons mentioned in the report.


We regret the mistake.


4. Housing Affordability

Douglas White, Florida Data
Clearinghouse, Shimberg Center,
University of Florida
Marc T Smith, Ph.D., Shimberg
Center, University of Florida

S1


The affordability of housing is an
important issue nationally and in the
state of Florida. Households are
concerned about it because affordability
affects their ability to become a
homeowner, as well as the size and
amenities of the home they are able to
purchase. Real estate salespersons and
other industry participants also are
concerned, because the number of
households able to afford the purchase
of a home is an important determinant
of single-family sales activity in their local
markets. Housing affordability also has
become an important public policy issue,
as home ownership is viewed as being
an important goal for both individual
and societal reasons.
Three factors are the primary
determinants of the affordability of
housing. These are household income,
housing prices, and mortgage rates. For
a household considering home-
ownership, an additional factor is the rate
of appreciation in housing prices. This
chapter begins with a discussion of
affordability using a homeownership cost
index measure. It then investigates issues
of housing affordability using a concept
called cost burden.


L jP



One measure of housing affordability
is the cost of homeownership, commonly


conveyed through housing affordability
indices. These indices generally indicate
that affordability increased substantially
towards the end of the last decade,
primarily as a result of lower interest rates
during that period. A housing
affordability index for an area brings
together the price and the income
elements that contribute to housing
affordability. The most common index
construction method is that used by the
National Association of Realtors (NAR).
The NAR index measures the ability of
the median income household in an area
to afford a median priced house. In
addition to the median income and
median house price in an area, index
construction requires the current
mortgage interest rate, assumptions
about the down payment required to
purchase the median price home, and the
maximum percentage of household
income that can be spent on housing. An
index of 100 indicates the typical
(median) family in the area has sufficient
income to purchase a single-family home
selling at the median price.' Median
house prices are calculated from the
DOR county property appraiser datasets.
Median household incomes come from
the 2000 decennial US Census.
Although important, median sale
prices in a county or MSA do not alone
determine housing affordability. A
second important factor is the income
of area residents. The highest household
incomes in Florida are generally in the
coastal counties that also contain many
high priced housing units. However,
median household incomes and single-
family house prices in an area are only
moderately correlated which can lead
to significant differences in housing
affordability across counties and MSAs.
Our index construction method can
be represented by the following formula:


Affordability indices are calculated by NAR only for the nine largest metropolitan areas in Florida. Moreover, most
of these MSAs are recent additions to the report, and thus provide little historical information on how housing
affordability has changed over time and across counties. In addition, the affordability indices published by NAR
are based only on homes that have sold through the use of a multiple listing service. Thus, the home sales used
to calculate the median sale price may not be representative of all housing stock in the area.







Median Family Income
A.!- i*..ndex = lx 1oo
Qualifying Income


Qualifying income is defined as the
income needed to qualify for a mortgage
to finance an existing median-priced
home. As an example, if median family
income in the area is $35,000, the
median price of an existing home is
$100,000, and the mortgage interest rate
is 10 percent, the calculated affordability
index is 103.9:


$35,000
4 x 12(0.80 x $100,000) x 0.008776
$35,000
$33,700
=103.9%


The denominator is the annual
mortgage payment, multiplied by 4,
because the income needed to qualify for
a 20 percent down, 10-percent, monthly
payment loan is assumed to be four times
the annual mortgage payment. This is
equivalent to a household spending 25
percent of their monthly income on
mortgage costs, and is consistent with
the qualifying ratio used by residential
mortgage lenders. The calculated index
of 103.9 indicates that median
household income in the area is slightly
(3.9 percent) higher than that needed to
qualify for the loan. The higher the
calculated affordability index, the easier
it is for a household in the area with
median income to purchase a median-
priced home.
To calculate affordability indices for
each county and MSA, mortgage rates
for each year are obtained from the
Federal Housing Finance Board. These
effective mortgage rates (points are
amortized over 10 years) combine fixed
and adjustable rate loans.2


We calculate affordability indices
(Exhibit 4-1) for all counties in Florida
and for the years for which we have
sufficient data (at least 25 sales each year,
as the sales provide the basis for the
calculation of a median sales price of a
home). Our index calculations differ
from those of the NAR because we use
the property appraiser data as the source
for home sales transaction prices rather
than the Multiple Listing Service used
by the Realtors, and our median income
is household rather than family income.
Our numbers are therefore not directly
comparable, but do give an indication
of relative affordability across the state.
Table 4.1 illustrates that consistently
across counties and MSAs, the
affordability indices developed for this
report show housing affordability
improving in Florida throughout the
1990s (i.e. the level of the affordability
index has generally increased). However
in many counties and MSAs there was a
decline in affordability between 1999
and 2001. Florida's improved housing
affordability in the 1990s is consistent
with an increase in affordability at the
national level. In 1990, the U.S.
affordability index was 109.5. In 1999
the index had risen to 139.1. That is,
the median household income in the
U.S. was 39.1 percent greater than that
needed to purchase a median price home
(using standard financing). In Florida
the median of 67 counties was 156.81
in 1991, 158.91 in 1999, and 140.98 in
2001 (the Florida median is not directly
comparable to the national number
because the Florida median is derived
from the 67 county indices). While
experiencing an increase in affordability
throughout the nineties, last year Florida
experienced a decline in affordability.
In the calculation of an affordability
index, the mortgage interest rate is a key
component because of its role in


The NAR also uses the effective mortgage rates supplied by the Federal Housing Finance Board and assumes, as we
do, that the income needed to qualify for standard financing is four times the annual mortgage payment. Thus,
our calculated affordability indexes are directly comparable to those calculated by NAR for the country's largest
metropolitan areas.









s ing



^^B{2003h^^


determining the qualifying income
needed to purchase the median priced
house. A large reason for the increased
affordability throughout the nineties was
the continued decline of mortgage rates.
The national average mortgage rate for
a single-family home was 9.74% in 1990,
and it had fallen to 7.96% by 2000, and
continued to decline to 6.51% in 2002.3
The combination of low interest rates
and the recent lackluster return to the
stock market has lead many to invest in
real estate. This increased investment has
caused home prices to dramatically
increase over the last few years and led
to concern that a speculative bubble is
forming in the housing market.
Another important factor that
contributed to the increased affordability
in the 1990s was the steady increase in
median household incomes. In fact,
median incomes generally increased
faster than median house prices over the
1990s time period. However,
unemployment in Florida increased from
3.6% in January 2000 to 5.3% in
January 2003.4 Not surprisingly, per
capital personal income barely increased
from $28,366 in 2000 to $29,596 in
2002.5 This slow income growth while
housing prices continue to appreciate
explains the recent decrease in housing
affordability.
In interpreting the affordability
indices for each county, several caveats
should be considered. First, as a result
of the limited sales transactions in some
smaller counties, the median sale price
may vary considerably from year to year.
This fluctuation in the estimated median
house price produces an exaggerated
variability in the calculated affordability
index. Second, the calculation of the
index using median house prices and
incomes may mask the distribution of
affordability across the various income
brackets within a county or MSA. For


Interest rate data is from the Federal Housing Finance Board.
Unemployment figures are from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor.
Per capital personal income figures are from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Accounts Data.


example, if house prices in a county tend
to be tightly distributed around their
median value, while incomes are more
widely dispersed, then affordability
problems will exist at the lower income
ranges that are not identified by the
affordability index. Thus, standard
indices based on median house prices
and median incomes are only one
measure of housing affordability. What
the affordability indices provide is an
indication of the relative change in
affordability within counties over time,
and the relative affordability of housing
across counties.
Table 4.2 ranks the affordability of
each county Eight Florida counties had
an affordability index below 100 in
2001. The least affordable counties [i.e.,
those with ranks closer to 65, only 65
counties are included because
insufficient sales precluded the inclusion
of Liberty and Volusia County] included
seven counties in major metropolitan
areas, Miami-Dade which ranked 60h,
Broward which ranked 59t, Lake which
ranked 58h, Osceola which ranked 55h,
Nassau which ranked 56h, Saint Johns
which ranked 54th, and Palm Beach
which ranked 52nd, two other MSA
counties, Martin (53), and Collier (57),
and coastal counties in south Florida and
on the panhandle including Gulf (61),
Franklin (64), Monroe (65), and Walton
(62). Monroe (the Florida Keys), a
growth restricted county with a unique
environment, is the least affordable with
an affordability index of 66.58. The
index exceeds the 2001 national average
of 135.7 in 43 of the 65 counties.
At the other extreme, the most
affordable counties are generally rural
counties in the interior of the state,
mostly in the north part of the state.
Bradford County is Florida's most
affordable county in 2001 (index =
213.04). Other top 10 high affordability





Revised February 2004


1992 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2001
Major Metro Areas

Ft. Lauderdale MSA
Broward County NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 92.12

Jacksonville MSA
Clay County 162.92 162.71 144.28 157.38 155.48 165.66 172.55 154.34
Duval County NA NA NA NA NA NA 150.39 141.34
Nassau County 133.42 131.90 126.89 120.29 117.80 121.49 126.88 106.43
St. Johns County 127.51 109.23 96.58 101.53 98.23 106.51 115.48 111.62

Miami MSA
Miami-Dade County 105.23 93.94 82.81 90.93 88.01 93.72 100.40 87.46

Orlando MSA
Lake County 124.69 113.22 111.99 108.39 108.63 106.94 132.45 99.11
Orange County 130.14 121.88 127.83 131.05 131.59 137.79 138.39 133.28
Osceola County 130.53 118.10 118.80 127.03 122.90 120.10 140.37 108.89
Seminole County 148.25 142.21 134.33 144.00 146.89 151.52 147.42 160.11

Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater MSA
Hernando County 150.45 135.93 136.56 134.91 145.81 145.51 162.59 146.71
Hillsborough County 135.01 131.12 126.57 131.99 134.02 139.04 134.43 145.32
Pasco County NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 129.00
Pinellas County 132.01 122.76 120.13 125.87 132.90 136.63 137.12 126.08

West Palm Beach-Boca Raton MSA
Palm Beach County 113.82 111.76 107.38 116.85 114.86 133.15 121.30 112.04

Other Metro Areas

Daytona Beach MSA
Flagler County 116.01 106.34 97.51 118.14 133.32 132.63 150.05 139.19
Volusia County 136.95 128.73 124.86 130.17 131.87 140.40 156.15 NA

Ft. Myers-Cape Coral MSA
Lee County 126.97 113.13 106.08 107.38 106.33 115.21 123.54 114.22

Ft. Pierce-Port St. Lucie MSA
Martin County 116.66 104.41 104.03 103.67 102.39 114.82 111.98 112.02
St. Lucie County 168.69 156.60 148.36 155.05 155.04 156.74 172.38 153.78

Ft. Walton Beach MSA
Okaloosa County 145.54 142.47 133.34 142.10 142.22 143.32 153.24 159.92

Gainesville MSA
Alachua County 114.77 115.78 113.74 114.85 112.86 115.59 114.99 121.38

Lakeland-Winter Haven MSA
Polk County 146.53 137.99 135.57 138.05 143.46 154.25 161.68 147.89

Melbourne-Titusville-Palm Bay MSA
Brevard County 155.77 151.23 146.83 151.04 147.19 147.06 163.37 146.35

Naples MSA
Collier County 100.80 98.47 88.75 97.68 95.57 98.12 103.99 103.01

Ocala MSA
Marion County 157.05 125.83 124.44 133.12 130.27 136.11 149.10 136.12

Panama City MSA
Bay County 144.82 149.03 136.71 142.90 139.72 140.29 148.66 135.77

Pensacola MSA
Escambia County 144.82 156.43 161.85 147.31 136.56 142.29 143.17 143.77
Santa Rosa County 151.34 138.31 126.71 138.39 131.59 136.48 151.18 136.71


57








I Table 66.6 Historic Affy I x C y At I e (


1994 1995


Punta Gorda MSA
Charlotte County

Sarasota-Bradenton MSA
Manatee County
Sarasota County

Tallahassee MSA
Gadsden County
Leon County

Vero Beach
Indian River County

Nonmetro County Regions

Northwest nonmetropolitan area
Calhoun County
Franklin County
Gulf County
Holmes County
Jackson County
Jefferson County
Wakulla County
Walton County
Washington County

Northeast nonmetropolitan area
Baker County
Bradford County
Columbia County
Dixie County
Gilchrist County
Lafayette County
Levy County
Madison County
Suwannee County
Taylor County
Union County

Central nonmetropolitan area


Citrus County
Putnam County
Sumter County


South nonmetropolitan area


De Soto County
Glades County
Hardee County
Hendry County
Highlands County
Monroe County
Okeechobee County


141.41


1998 1999


2001


125.61 119.48 128.68 128.44 132.95 154.05 120.42


122.53 119.51 117.24 119.60 118.54 120.41 118.49 116.40
136.12 120.06 116.93 122.57 119.83 132.98 129.61 114.94


137.01 135.71 131.23 146.17 122.71 134.15 169.44 142.52
144.56 144.46 128.73 136.62 144.79 145.17 142.82 154.66


152.63 146.47


186.57
123.48
166.32
201.00
154.89
NA
NA
169.54
176.74


178.36
204.00
142.20
198.51
203.16
NA
158.35
203.35
207.12
199.46
NA



152.98
149.55
NA



159.69
133.25
262.56
135.90
155.31
79.55
162.21


192.39
89.85
143.41
193.65
191.47
218.45
141.97
114.97
184.07


196.58
203.27
153.65
191.68
124.43
NA
151.97
212.91
160.67
147.17
NA



148.84
146.02
NA



182.96
132.51
263.51
160.80
148.61
72.41
145.86


145.46


179.82
85.07
146.43
188.88
155.73
240.65
144.58
103.74
182.72


196.48
179.53
152.04
199.59
189.25
NA
138.16
215.78
168.57
182.01
NA



132.14
155.12
NA



168.86
134.98
210.55
150.26
131.13
64.25
145.68


145.55 151.74 170.00 156.82 152.57


167.72
76.83
161.99
176.34
160.16
171.68
136.58
105.28
177.71


182.13
171.62
167.16
164.72
145.38
NA
148.48
175.91
156.84
179.37
NA



143.10
156.39
NA



160.58
182.99
199.86
147.87
134.03
70.38
157.16


174.73
93.41
137.36
209.71
150.45
200.90
140.86
88.00
173.26


159.80
188.40
155.47
NA
116.15
NA
128.56
166.05
144.87
189.41
NA



151.28
167.84
NA



172.81
162.45
201.89
165.94
140.93
67.64
145.63


190.35
78.15
118.07
197.12
155.87
190.92
138.16
87.64
176.84


171.26
189.75
153.66
173.00
170.58
208.31
159.69
169.04
168.45
194.74
NA



145.48
172.72
NA



147.04
158.28
197.01
186.73
161.01
74.22
150.86


182.10 179.76
77.06 72.12
114.10 84.92
210.89 195.50
191.62 148.41
191.32 168.56
143.74 137.30
93.95 83.55
210.46 174.41


190.99 179.40
178.68 213.04
159.43 164.52
220.39 147.12
159.30 147.45
212.93 201.71
160.00 153.04
174.75 174.31
181.40 141.95
197.38 178.70
NA 161.08



166.90 146.80
163.39 166.12
106.50 79.66



165.36 155.32
182.64 169.14
214.62 189.27
194.77 200.03
179.00 165.04
70.21 66.58
176.58 164.01





Revised February 2004


index counties in 2001 include
Lafayette, Hendry, Holmes, Hardee,
Calhoun, Baker, Taylor, Washington,
and Madison. These counties, with the
exception of Taylor County, are inland,
rural, and characterized by relatively low
median house prices. It should be
emphasized that most of the counties
with the highest affordability indices also
had fewer than 300 transactions in 2001.
The small number of transactions is not
surprising in small counties, but may be
indicative of the level of competition in
the market and therefore the pressure on
housing prices. Also, with so few


transactions, the estimated median
house price is subject to more random
variation from year to year, and thus
likely overstates the true variation in
affordability in these small counties.


4.3 Cost Burden

The affordability index indicates that
housing became more affordable in
Florida in the late 1990s as compared
to the early part of the decade. The
primary factor in increasing affordability
is the decline in mortgage interest rates
during the period.


However, the use of indices focuses
only on the average and masks what is
happening at the low end. In addition,
the index reported only examines owner-
occupied housing. For households of
lower income, the loss of affordable
housing from the stock and price
increases that have exceeded the growth
in incomes, among other factors, have
led to a worsening problem of housing
affordability. As a means of examining
the number of households with a housing
affordability problem, we calculate a
number called "cost burden." Cost
burden is our estimate of the number of


I Table4.2County Affordabily Ide x an R


2001


2001 Rank


Most Affordable
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34


Escambia
Gadsden
Suwannee
Duval
Flagler
Wakulla
Santa Rosa
Marion
Bay
Orange
Pasco
Pinellas
Alachua
Charlotte
Manatee
Sarasota
Lee
Palm Beach
Martin
Saint Johns
Osceola
Nassau
Collier
Lake
Broward
Miami-Dade
Gulf
Walton
Sumter
Franklin
Monroe
Liberty
Volusia


143.77
142.52
141.95
141.34
139.19
137.30
136.71
136.12
135.77
133.28
129.00
126.08
121.38
120.42
116.40
114.94
114.22
112.04
112.02
111.62
108.89
106.43
103.01
99.11
92.12
87.46
84.92
83.55
79.66
72.12
66.58
NA
NA


35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
Least Affordable


County


County


2001 Rank


Bradford
Lafayette
Hendry
Holmes
Hardee
Calhoun
Baker
Taylor
Washington
Madison
Glades
Jefferson
Putnam
Highlands
Columbia
Okeechobee
Union
Seminole
Okaloosa
DeSoto
Leon
Clay
Saint Lucie
Levy
Indian River
Hamilton
Jackson
Polk
Gilchrist
Dixie
Citrus
Hernando
Brevard
Hillsborough


213.04
201.71
200.03
195.50
189.27
179.76
179.40
178.70
174.41
174.31
169.14
168.56
166.12
165.04
164.52
164.01
161.08
160.11
159.92
155.32
154.66
154.34
153.78
153.04
152.57
149.17
148.41
147.89
147.45
147.12
146.80
146.71
146.35
145.32










. S The


Income as
Percent of
Area Median Cost Burden
Family Income All Renters 30-50% 50+%


<30%
30-49.9%
50-79.9%
80-119.9%
120+ %
Grand Total


353,069
290,570
425,173
428,904
445,974
1,943,690


43,383
124,412
202,653
64,234
12,778
447,460


217,315
109,886
28,248
5,477
458
361,384


Florida renter households paying more
than 30 percent of their income toward
housing costs. The 30 percent figure
corresponds to that used in federal
housing programs and is a common
standard used to assess housing
affordability problems. Our calculation
is for renter households only. While over
20 percent of the State's owner
households are also cost burdened, the
renter households are the targets of most
assistance programs historically.
Table 4.3 shows that our estimate is
that in the year 2002 there were about
1.9 million renter households in Florida.
Of these households, about 809,000


were cost burdened, representing 41.6
percent of all renters. Of the households
paying more than 30 percent of their
income toward rent, over 361,000
(almost 45 percent) pay more than 50
percent. Most of the households paying
more than 50 percent of their income
toward housing costs had incomes below
50 percent of the median income for
their area.
About 20 percent of the cost
burdened renter households reside in
Miami-Dade County. With 11.5
percent in Broward County and 6.5
percent in Palm Beach County, our
estimate is that more than one-third, 38
percent, of cost burdened households are
located in the three south Florida
counties. An additional 15 percent of
the state's cost burdened households are
in the Tampa Bay metropolitan area, so
that a total of 53 percent of Florida's
renter households experiencing cost
burden are located in four MSAs.







5. Florida House Price
Trends: Market
Comparisons and
Forecasts

Dean H. Gatzlaff, Ph.D.
FSU Real Estate Center
The Florida State University

5.1 Introduction

Buoyed by historically low mortgage
interest rates, the inflation-adjusted price
of single-family homes in Florida has
steadily increased since 1996. On
average, house prices have increased by
almost 4.0 percent per year over and
above the general rate of inflation over
the last five years. This real rate of
increase is higher than during any other
five-year period we've recorded,
including the high appreciation period
of the 1970s. Estimates indicate that,
other than in perhaps some areas of
central Florida and northwest Florida,
the events of September 11, 2001 and
the sluggish U.S. economy have not
slowed recent house price increases.
Preliminary estimates indicate that, on
average, house prices in Florida have
increased by 8.00 percent annually since
2000. When compared to the general
annual rate of inflation of 1.97 percent
over this same period, it yields an average
real house price appreciation rate of 6.03
percent. The persistence in this price
trend has resulted in an upward revision
to our previously reported Florida house
price appreciation forecasts for the 2001
to 2010 period-from 3.28 percent to
4.97 percent, annually.


The purpose of this report is to
document single-family house price
movements for the state of Florida.' The
report is organized as follows. In the next
section, Section 5.2, Florida-wide single-
family house price indices are reported
for the 1971 to 2002 period (preliminary
estimates for 2002) and compared with
changes in the consumer price index
(CPI-U), the broad stock market index
(S&P500), and a long-term government
bond index. In Section 5.3, relative
house price appreciation rates in Florida's
11 planning districts from 1981 to 2002
are compared and contrasted. In
addition, house price movements in the
larger urban areas are compared to the
smaller, more rural, areas. A comparison
of relative house price appreciation
among the 20 Florida MSAs is presented
in Section 5.4. Section 5.5 reports
average annual house price movements
from 1996 to 2001 for individual
counties where sufficient data are
available. County transaction data were
aggregated where adequate data were not
available to provide reasonably reliable
results. Projected house price
appreciation rates are reported for the
2001 to 2010 period in Section 5.6.

5.2 Statewide Measures of
Single-Family House Prices in
Florida

The annual movement in the overall
price of single-family housing in Florida
for the last 30 years is summarized in
Figure 5.1 and Table 5.1. Figure 5.1
indicates annual house price appreciation
in the state of Florida climbed as high as
17.5 percent in 1978 and experienced


To avoid the problems associated with inferring price appreciation from the changes in median sale prices, (e.g.,
median sale prices are reported by the National Association of Realtors) estimates of house price appreciation are
constructed using a "repeat-sale" method. This method has been shown to produce reliable estimates ofappreciation
while holding "constant" any changes in house characteristics that have occurred over time. Implementation of
the method requires actual transaction data from individual properties that have sold more than once; thus, the
index is applicable to existing house prices. Note that each Florida county property appraiser retains the two
most recent transaction prices, if sold twice, for each property in their county. Unfortunately, updating the index
is complicated because the entire index is "revised" when new sale data are added each year, and older sale
information for t 1'" I11,, L third time are deleted. The most reliable index estimate occurs in the period
spanned by the most representative sample of repeat sales. In updating the indices, the average holding period is
assumed to be approximately 10 years and a final index level is reported for 1992. Index levels after 1991 will be
subsequently revised as additional sale data become available.









us ing



^^B{2003h^^


Figsur 5.1 Florida *n l Hm 6 iatn (100


Note: 2002 values are preliminary. House price appreciation rates are derived from the Florida House Price
Index (all counties) for years 1981 to 2002, and from the Florida House Price Index (six largest MSAs) for
years 1971 to 1980. General inflation is derived from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index
(CPI-U).


-O- Annual Apprec.
--- General
- Real HP


With the exception of 1981, annual
house price changes in the 1980s were
substantially diminished-hovering
between 1.89 and 3.29 percent. Annual
house price appreciation averaged only
3.01 percent for the period, compared
to an average inflation rate of4.51. Thus,
inflation-adjusted house price increases
were negative at -1.50 percent. In fact,
only in 1986 did house price appreciation
exceed inflation during the decade.
Revised estimates for the 1990s indicate
that this characteristic continued through
the first half of the 1990s. However, a


declines of nearly 1 percent in 1977 and
1991. In the inflationary 1970s, house
prices increased dramatically and were
characterized by both high levels of
appreciation and volatility. During this
period, annual appreciation rates
averaged 9.52 percent statewide. This is
contrasted with an annual inflation rate
of 8.11 percent. Hence, inflation-
adjusted house prices increased, on
average, 1.41 percent per year (0.0952 -
0.0811 = 0.0141).


The implicit rent, or dividend, received by households due to homeownership is .. ll. assumed by urban and
financial economists to be approximately 4 to 6 percent. Although the dividend for rental housing .. .11..
the range of 7 to 10 percent, occupants of owner-occupied housing I . .11. consume more (larger) housing
relative to the rent the home would command in an open market. Thus, the implied dividend (net rent / market
value) they receive for renting, implicitly from themselves, is less as a percent of the value of the asset than
traditional rental housing.


reversal of this trend occurred in the mid-
1990s and continued through the last
half of the 1990s. On average, from
1991 to 1995 Florida house prices
increased at a rate of 1.46 percent per
year compared to average inflation rates
of 2.98 percent. In contrast, the 1996
to 2000 period saw house prices increase
4.72 percent per year, while general
inflation slowed to 2.54 percent to yield
an inflation-adjusted rate of appreciation
2.18 percent. This trend has
strengthened into the 2000s, where
preliminary estimates indicate average
annual house appreciation rates of 8.00
percent in 2001 and 2002. This
compares to only 1.97 percent average
annual inflation, yielding historically
high inflation-adjusted appreciation
estimates of 6.03 percent.
Over the 30-year period nominal
house price returns averaged
approximately 10 percent per year. This
rate includes an implicit rent of 5 percent
that is necessary to compute for
homeownership.2 This rate compares
favorably to average annual rates of 14.45
and 9.87 percent for stocks (S&P 500)
and bonds (long-term government
bonds), respectively. A wide deviation
in relative returns between single-family
housing, stocks, and bonds can be seen
in the 10-year summaries of the 1970s,
1980s, and 1990s. It is interesting to
note the preliminary 2002 annual returns
are 13.11 percent for housing, compared
to -22.11, 17.84, and 2.38 percent rates
for stocks, bonds and the CPI,
respectively-an exceptionally strong
relative performance period for housing.
Preliminary estimates indicate that house
prices, adjusted for inflation, have risen
quicker during the 1997 to 2002 period
than any other consecutive five-year
period reported.









Seece Aset Clse 17 -2002)


Nominal Real
House House Nominal Nominal Nominal
Price General Price Returns to Returns to Returns to
Apprec. Inflation Apprec. Housing Stocks Bonds


1971-1980
1981-1990
1991-2000


Annual Mean
Annual Mean
Annual Mean


1971-2000 Annual Mean
1971-2000 Std. Dev.

2001-2002 Annual Mean
2002-prelim. Annual Mean


9.52 8.11 1.41
3.01 4.51 -1.50
3.09 2.76 0.33

5.21 5.13 0.08
5.11 3.27 3.55

8.00 1.97 6.03
8.11 2.38 5.73


14.52
8.01
8.09


10.34
14.63
18.39


4.11
14.51
11.00


10.21 14.45 9.87
n.a. 16.45 12.30


13.00 -17.00
13.11 -22.11


10.88
17.84


Note: 2002 values are preliminary. House price appreciation rates are derived from the Florida House Price Index (all counties)
for years 1981 to 2002, and from the Florida House Price Index (six largest MSAs) for years 1971 to 1980. General inflation is
derived from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index (CPI-U). Returns to housing assume afive-percent long-run
dividend to housing from implicit rent. Returns to stocks (S&P500) and bonds (Long-Term Government Bonds) are as reported
by Ibbotson Associates (Stocks, Bonds, Bills and Inflation, 2002).


0.09-

0.08- -

0.07-

0.06-



0.04-





0.01

All MSAs

-0.01Non-MSAs
O C; CN n t LO (D N0 C) C CM CM 0 LO (D N0 C) C O CM M


Note: 2002 values are preliminary. House price appreciation rates for "All MSA" and "Non-MSA counties" are derived
from aggregate index of all 20 Florida MSAs and the aggregate index estimated for the counties not in any of the 20 Florida
MSAs, respectively.

-U- AIIMSAs

-0- Non-MSAs









s ing



^^B{2003h^^


Fiur.3 Avrg Anua House Pric Aprcito


0 0

z


Note: District 1 (Bay, Escambia, Holmes, Okaloosa, Santa Rosa, Walton, and Washington Cos.), District 2
(Calhoun, Franklin, Gadsden, Gulf, Jackson, Jefferson, Leon, Liberty, and Wakulla Cos.), District 3 (Alachua,
Bradford, Columbia, Dixie, Gilchrist, Hamilton, Lafayette, Madison, Suwannee, Taylor, and Union Cos.), District
4 (Baker, Clay, [adeq. data not avail, for Duival], Nassau, Putnam, and St. Johns Cos.), District 5 (Citus, Levy,
Marion, and Sumter Cos.), District 6 (Brevard, Flagler, Lake, Orange, Osceola, Seminole, and Volusia Cos.),
District 7 (De Soto, Hardee, Highlands, Okeechobee, and Polk Cos.), District 8 (Hernando, Hillsborough,
Manatee, Pasco, Pinellas, and Sarasota Cos.), District 9 (Charlotte, Collier, Glades, Hendry, and Lee Cos.),
District 10 (Indian River, Martin, Palm Beach, and St. Lucie Cos.), and District 11 (Broward, Dade, and
Monroe Cos.)


1981-90
1991-00

2001-02


higher rates of appreciation from 1986
to 1998. Recently, from 1999 to 2001,
house prices have increased at a greater
rate in the MSA-designated counties than
in the smaller areas. Preliminary
estimates indicate this trend continues
into 2002.


5.3 District-Level Measures of
Single-Family House Price
Appreciation in Florida

A comparison of annual appreciation
rates for housing located in large
metropolitan areas designated as
Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) by
the U.S. Bureau of the Census versus
housing located outside of MSA
designated areas is charted in Figure 5.2.
Single-family housing located in the non-
MSA counties consistently experienced


The counties included in each of the eleven planning districts are noted in Table 5.14.
Note that sufficient transaction data were not available to report 2002 appreciation estimates at the district, MSA,
and county level; however, preliminary statewide measures are estimated and reported.


Comparing house price movements
among the eleven planning districts in
Florida reveals some patterns.3 Figure 5.3
charts the average annual house price
appreciation for two decades (1981-90
and 1991-2000) and for the first two
years of the 2000s (2001-2002) for each
of the planning districts. Statewide
annual house price appreciation averaged
just over 3.0 percent both decades.
However, it is clear from Figure 5.3 that
in general South Florida (i.e., Districts
8, 9, 10, & 11) experienced higher rates
of appreciation in the 1980s than North
Florida (Districts 1, 2, & 3). This trend
then reversed in the 1990s. Notably,
average annual appreciation rates in the
2000s are dramatically higher than in
either of the two previous decades-a
trend that is forecasted later to slow.
Table 5.2 details the period trends in
appreciation across the districts of the
state. It is interesting to note that
Northeast Florida, West Florida and the
Tampa Bay area experienced high rates
of house price appreciation, relative to
the state in the early 1980s. The second
half of the 1980s was marked by high
rates of house price appreciation in South
Florida. These are followed by high rates
in West Florida, Apalachee, and North
Central districts from 1991-1995.
House price indices are reported for each
district in Table 5.3.4 In the late 1990s,
appreciation rates in Northeast Florida,
Tampa Bay, and South Florida exceeded
other districts. It is interesting to note
that South Florida has experienced
very rapid appreciation during the last
two years.
Annual rates of house price
appreciation and the respective
correlation of the 21-year series are noted
in Tables 5.4 and 5.5. House price
movements are found to be highly
correlated among Districts 6,7, 8, 9, 10,
and 11 (i.e., through East Central,
Central, Tampa Bay, Southwest Florida,







Tale5. Avrg Annua Pecntg Appecitio and Period* Raknsbe isroel ected
Perod (19812002


District


1981-85 1986-90 1991-95 1996-00 2001-02


Florida (All Districts)
Florida (All MSAs)
Florida (All Non-MSA counties)
District 1: West Florida
District 2: Apalachee
District 3: North Central Florida
District 4: Northeast Florida
District 5: Withlacoochee
District 6: East Central Florida
District 7: Central Florida
District 8: Tampa Bay
District 9: Southwest Florida
District 10: Treasure Coast
District 11: South Florida


3.43
3.44
3.31
4.24
2.80
1.89
6.14
2.88
4.06
2.65
4.53
1.43
2.87
2.21


2.58
2.54
3.42
0.22
1.91
2.93
1.97
1.60
2.19
1.62
2.05
4.41
3.33
3.75


1.46
1.41
2.38
3.34
3.01
2.80
2.19
0.95
1.03
2.05
1.45
0.33
0.67
2.53


4.72
4.72
4.70
4.73
4.34
4.82
5.45
3.71
4.44
3.72
5.27
4.35
4.59
4.97


8.00
8.08
6.63
3.78
6.69
4.83
7.68
5.06
6.47
2.90
7.93
7.96
5.65
10.96


Note: Estimates for 2002 are preliminary. Shaded areas denote top quartile ranking. District 1 (Bay, Escambia, Holmes, Okaloosa,
Santa Rosa, Walton, and Washington Cos.), District 2 (Calhoun, Franklin, Gadsden, Gulf, Jackson, Jefferson, Leon, Liberty, and Wakulla
Cos.), District 3 (Alachua, Bradford, Columbia, Dixie, Gilchrist, Hamilton, Lafayette, Madison, Suwannee, Taylor, and Union Cos.),
District 4 (Baker, Clay, [adeq. data not avail, for Duval], Nassau, Putnam, and St. Johns Cos.), District 5 (Citus, Levy, Marion, and
Sumter Cos.), District 6 (Brevard, Flagler, Lake, Orange, Osceola, Seminole, and Volusia Cos.), District 7 (De Soto, Hardee, Highlands,
Okeechobee, and Polk Cos.), District 8 (Hernando, Hillsborough, Manatee, Pasco, Pinellas, and Sarasota Cos.), District 9 (Charlotte,
Collier, Glades, Hendry, and Lee Cos.), District 10 (Indian River, Martin, Palm Beach, and St. Lucie Cos.), and District 11 (Broward,
Dade, and Monroe Cos.)


and South Florida including the
Orlando, and Miami areas), and
between the districts comprising
Jacksonville, Orlando, and Tampa

5.4 MSA-Level Measures of
Single-Family House Price
Appreciation in Florida

Average annual rates of appreciation
are listed for five-year periods from
1981-2000 and the 2001-2002 period
in Table 5.6, as well as the relative
ranking of each MSA's among the 20
MSAs with respect to its house price
increases. During the 1980 to 1985
period, the larger MSAs of Jacksonville
and Tampa-St. Petersburg generally led
other MSAs in house price appreciation.
In the later half of the 1980s, MSAs
located in the southern portion of the
state, particularly MSAs such as Naples,
Punta Gorda, and Ft. Myers in the
southeast led the rest of the state in house
price appreciation. The 1991 to 1995


period, a slow growth period, saw a
change in this trend with relatively rapid
appreciation in the northwest area of
Florida. During the first half of the
1990s, areas such as Panama City, Ft.
Walton Beach, Pensacola, and Tallahassee
outperformed all other MSAs with the
exception of Miami. In the last half of
the 1990s, the trend in house price
appreciation looked much like the early
1980s, with Jacksonville, Tampa-St.
Petersburg and Naples once again among
the state's leaders. Early estimates
indicate that the MSAs in south Florida
have experienced exceptionally rapid
house price appreciation in the first
couple years after 2000.
It is interesting to note that the Naples
and Miami MSAs were among the
highest quartile in terms of average
annual house price appreciation rates in
three of the four five year periods studied,
and have continued to experience rapid
appreciation rates into the 2000s. In
addition, most areas experienced periods
65


























All All Non Dist. Dist. Dist. Dist. Dist. Dist. Dist. Dist. Dist. Dist. Dist.
FL MSA MSA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11


1.000 1.000 1.000
1.047 1.069 1.074
1.084 1.124 1.092
1.107 1.150 1.127
1.166 1.198 1.149
1.176 1.230 1.146
1.206 1.230 1.149
1.270 1.245 1.155
1.312 1.242 1.202
1.365 1.252 1.224
1.391 1.243 1.259
1.387 1.258 1.298
1.416 1.295 1.325
1.446 1.338 1.323
1.506 1.408 1.412
1.564 1.465 1.459
1.604 1.554 1.545
1.666 1.617 1.574
1.759 1.690 1.646
1.834 1.771 1.695
1.966 1.845 1.802
2.085 1.903 1.873
2.236 n.a. n.a.


1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
0.993 1.141 1.061 1.066
1.020 1.192 1.120 1.087
1.096 1.230 1.091 1.138
1.145 1.298 1.151 1.187
1.093 1.343 1.149 1.219
1.175 1.361 1.146 1.242
1.251 1.399 1.203 1.269
1.188 1.456 1.196 1.297
1.255 1.488 1.231 1.338
1.257 1.479 1.242 1.359
1.267 1.483 1.218 1.349
1.271 1.499 1.198 1.346
1.323 1.553 1.243 1.369
1.364 1.587 1.277 1.394
1.442 1.647 1.301 1.430
1.501 1.715 1.329 1.456
1.578 1.785 1.364 1.500
1.633 1.885 1.411 1.568
1.732 2.002 1.476 1.650
1.824 2.147 1.560 1.775
1.900 2.310 1.630 1.894
n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.


1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
1.073 1.100 1.077 1.084
1.077 1.129 1.068 1.097
1.105 1.176 1.060 1.126
1.132 1.219 1.071 1.138
1.138 1.246 1.071 1.150
1.161 1.289 1.112 1.180
1.165 1.322 1.145 1.205
1.197 1.342 1.190 1.280
1.234 1.369 1.277 1.326
1.232 1.379 1.328 1.353
1.237 1.359 1.328 1.335
1.250 1.367 1.322 1.318
1.284 1.394 1.314 1.332
1.324 1.446 1.333 1.368
1.364 1.480 1.350 1.399
1.394 1.524 1.367 1.429
1.431 1.571 1.410 1.466
1.502 1.660 1.461 1.541
1.566 1.764 1.542 1.629
1.637 1.912 1.669 1.749
1.717 2.083 1.832 1.917
n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.


Note: 2002 values are preliminary. District 1 (Bay, Escambia, Holmes, Okaloosa, Santa Rosa, Walton, and Washington Cos.), District 2 (Calhoun, Franklin, Gadsden, Gulf,
Jackson, Jefferson, Leon, Liberty, and Wakulla Cos.), District 3 (Alachua, Bradford, Columbia, Dixie, Gilchrist, Hamilton, Lafayette, Madison, Suwannee, Taylor, and Union
Cos.), District 4 (Baker, Clay, [adeq. data not avail, for Duval], Nassau, Putnam, and St. Johns Cos.), District 5 (Citus, Levy, Marion, and Sumter Cos.), District 6 (Brevard,
Flagler, Lake, Orange, Osceola, Seminole, and Volusia Cos.), District 7 (De Soto, Hardee, Highlands, Okeechobee, and Polk Cos.), District 8 (Hernando, Hillsborough,
Manatee, Pasco, Pinellas, and Sarasota Cos.), District 9 (Charlotte, Collier, Glades, Hendry, and Lee Cos.), District 10 (Indian River, Martin, Palm Beach, and St. Lucie
Cos.), and District 11 (Broward, Dade, and Monroe Cos.)


1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002


1.000
1.072
1.098
1.129
1.160
1.183
1.205
1.245
1.282
1.321
1.343
1.334
1.332
1.357
1.410
1.444
1.494
1.534
1.614
1.699
1.817
1.960
2.119


1.000
1.074
1.099
1.130
1.159
1.183
1.205
1.244
1.281
1.318
1.341
1.331
1.327
1.353
1.405
1.437
1.488
1.528
1.606
1.692
1.809
1.954
2.113


1.000
1.066
1.091
1.101
1.107
1.114
1.153
1.205
1.258
1.307
1.339
1.341
1.339
1.398
1.470
1.516
1.567
1.612
1.691
1.785
1.930
2.155
n.a.










All All Non Dist. Dist. Dist. Dist. Dist. Dist. Dist. Dist. Dist. Dist. Dist.
FL MSA MSA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11


1981 7.25 7.38
1982 2.42 2.37
1983 2.78 2.81
1984 2.71 2.58
1985 1.99 2.05
1986 1.89 1.86
1987 3.29 3.19
1988 3.02 3.01
1989 2.97 2.92
1990 1.74 1.73
1991 -0.69 -0.72
1992 -0.18 -0.30
1993 1.92 1.91
1994 3.88 3.87
1995 2.38 2.30
1996 3.49 3.54
1997 2.71 2.64
1998 5.17 5.15
1999 5.25 5.31
2000 6.96 6.94
2001 7.89 7.99
2002 8.11 8.16


4.70 6.93 7.41 -0.67 14.08
3.54 5.16 1.63 2.64 4.47
2.09 2.27 3.28 7.47 3.17
5.36 4.18 1.94 4.49 5.60
0.85 2.68 -0.28 -4.49 3.40
2.57 0.02 0.26 7.43 1.34
5.28 1.19 0.51 6.53 2.84
3.33 -0.23 4.10 -5.07 4.09
4.01 0.76 1.78 5.61 2.19
1.92 -0.65 2.88 0.14 -0.62
-0.26 1.17 3.12 0.82 0.26
2.09 2.97 2.09 0.30 1.09
2.12 3.31 -0.15 4.14 3.62
4.13 5.20 6.72 3.09 2.17
3.83 4.04 3.29 5.68 3.81
2.58 6.07 5.90 4.12 4.13
3.86 4.08 1.89 5.13 4.06
5.58 4.53 4.55 3.46 5.61
4.23 4.81 2.98 6.07 6.22
7.24 4.17 6.36 5.33 7.23
6.02 3.12 3.92 4.17 7.60
7.25 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.


6.14
5.56
-2.61
5.45
-0.17
-0.20
4.93
-0.59
2.90
0.96
-1.96
-1.66
3.81
2.69
1.87
2.17
2.66
3.40
4.60
5.74
4.48
n.a.


6.60 7.26 9.96
1.94 0.37 2.68
4.71 2.66 4.18
4.28 2.43 3.66
2.77 0.52 2.20
1.86 2.00 3.47
2.17 0.36 2.50
2.17 2.75 1.57
3.18 3.09 1.97
1.58 -0.13 0.73
-0.74 0.40 -1.41
-0.19 0.99 0.56
1.69 2.74 1.96
1.79 3.12 3.75
2.61 3.02 2.38
1.84 2.20 2.92
2.98 2.68 3.12
4.54 4.94 5.67
5.22 4.27 6.27
7.61 4.53 8.36
6.66 4.91 8.95
n.a. n.a. n.a.


7.69 8.45 6.56
-0.86 1.15 2.39
-0.69 2.69 0.87
1.04 0.98 0.54
-0.03 1.06 0.70
3.86 2.65 3.44
2.93 2.13 4.51
3.99 6.16 4.40
7.26 3.60 3.93
4.04 2.11 2.47
0.00 -1.35 0.10
-0.48 -1.27 -0.11
-0.63 1.02 4.43
1.47 2.74 5.14
1.31 2.22 3.09
1.24 2.16 3.38
3.16 2.57 2.84
3.62 5.14 4.90
5.54 5.69 5.60
8.22 7.36 8.12
9.76 9.66 11.65
n.a. n.a. n.a.


Note: 2002 values are preliminary.


All All Non Dist. Dist. Dist. Dist. Dist. Dist. Dist. Dist. Dist. Dist. Dist.
FL MSA MSA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11


1.00
0.78 1.00
0.47 0.37 1.00
0.59 0.39 0.51 1.00
0.16 0.37 0.12 -0.09 1.00
0.81 0.60 0.66 0.51 -0.04 1.00
0.66 0.77 0.56 0.22 0.27 0.65 1.00
0.90 0.75 0.40 0.43 0.24 0.80 0.58 1.00
0.82 0.62 0.53 0.62 0.15 0.83 0.47 0.78 1.00
0.95 0.74 0.54 0.53 0.22 0.87 0.62 0.93 0.85 1.00
0.78 0.65 -0.01 0.41 0.11 0.53 0.47 0.70 0.65 0.69 1.00
0.93 0.69 0.22 0.55 0.03 0.74 0.48 0.84 0.81 0.86 0.87 1.00
0.88 0.71 0.23 0.45 0.18 0.59 0.59 0.68 0.69 0.77 0.81 0.88 1.00


Florida
All MSAs
Non-MSA
Dist.-1
Dist.-2
Dist.-3
Dist.-4
Dist.-5
Dist.-6
Dist.-7
Dist.-8
Dist.-9
Dist.-10
Dist.-11









. S The


of rapid growth and slow growth in house
prices relative to the other Florida MSAs.
Only the Sarasota-Bradenton and Ocala
MSAs were ranked in all periods to be in
the top 10 (of 20) and bottom 10,
respectively.
House price indices are reported for
each of the 20 MSAs, as well as the state,
all MSAs, and all non-MSA areas in Table
5.7.5 Annual rates of appreciation from
1981 to 2001, constructed from the
indices listed in Table 5.7, are listed in
Table 5.8 for all MSAs in Florida. Table
5.9 lists the correlation coefficients
estimated using the 21-year appreciation
rates in Table 5.8. As with the District
estimates, a strong correlation in the
movements of house prices is seen in the
central part of the state among the MSAs
in central and northeast Florida. It is
interesting to note that although the
Ocala MSA is located among these
MSAs, the house price appreciation in
Ocala appears to be fairly independent
of the underlying conditions affecting the
other MSAs. In addition, house price
movements in the MSAs in the southern
areas (i.e., Miami, Ft. Lauderdale, and
West Palm Beach) of the state are highly
correlated, as are the Ft. Pierce, Naples,
and Ft. Myers areas. Table 5.9 gives
further evidence that, with some
exceptions, the state's housing market
can be broadly described in terms of
three general markets-northwest,
central and south.

5.5 County-Level Measures of
House Price Appreciation in
Florida

Estimates of house price appreciation
for the 1996 to 2001 period are reported
for all Florida counties, listed by district,
in Table 5.10. Estimates are reported
for all counties having sufficient
transaction information. In some
districts, the small counties are grouped
to provide more reliable estimates.


Note that the estimated appreciation rates for the Jacksonville MSA include primarily Clay, Nassau, and St. Johns
counties. They do not substantially include Duval County, due to the limited data available.


During the 1996 to 2001 period,
annual house price appreciation rates
exceeded 6.0 percent in six counties
(areas): Monroe (8.36 percent), St. Johns
(7.40 percent), Collier (6.84 percent),
Pinellas (6.54 percent), the smaller
counties of District 2 (6.52 percent) and
Dade (6.42 percent). In contrast, five
areas experienced average annual
appreciation rates of less than 3.75
percent over this same period: the small
counties in District 7 (3.18 percent),
Citrus (3.32 percent), the small counties
of Districts 4 and 5 (3.52 percent each)
and Hernando (3.55 percent). Relative
to other large urban counties, Pinellas
and Dade experienced rapid increases
in house prices of 6.54, and 6.42
percent per year, respectively. Table
5.11 reports the estimates of annual
house price appreciation for the state
and county areas for each year from
1996 through 2001.

5.6 Forecasts of State- and
MSA-Level House Price
Changes

Changes in population, real income,
mortgage interest rates, housing starts,
and price changes in previous periods are
shown in this section to affect MSA
house price levels. The effects of these
selected explanatory variables on
inflation-adjusted house price
appreciation are displayed in Table 5.12.
Note the inflation-adjusted price
appreciation is calculated as:

inflation-adjusted appreciation =
(I appreciationn rate) -1
S(1+inflation rate) ]

The effects of the explanatory
variables on inflation-adjusted house
price appreciation is estimated using a
"fixed-effects" regression model that
incorporates the time-series, cross-
sectional, nature of the data such that







Tabe.6 Avrg Annual Percntg *gAppecato and Period* Rakig By g o Slce
Perod (19812002


Metropolitan Statistical Area


Florida (All MSAs)
Pensacola MSA(Dist. 1)
Ft. Walton Beach MSA (Dist. 1)
Panama City MSA (Dist. 1)
Tallahassee MSA (Dist. 2)
Gainesville MSA (Dist. 3)
Jacksonville MSA (Dist. 4)
Ocala MSA (Dist. 5)
Daytona Beach MSA (Dist. 6)
Orlando MSA (Dist. 6)
Melbourne-Titusville MSA (Dist. 6)
Lakeland MSA (Dist. 7)
Tampa-St.Pete. MSA (Dist. 8)
Sarasota-Bradenton MSA (Dist. 8)
Punta Gorda MSA (Dist. 9)
Ft. Myers MSA (Dist. 9)
Naples MSA (Dist. 9)
Ft. Pierce MSA (Distr. 10)
West Palm Beach MSA (Dist. 10)
Ft. Lauderdale MSA (Dist. 11)
Miami MSA (Dist. 11)


1981-85 1986-90 1991-95 1996-00
(rank) (rank) (rank) (rank)


3.44
4.20
4.67
3.01
2.81
n.a.
7.38
2.63
3.35
4.66
3.05
3.15
4.76
3.05
0.58
2.03
4.51
2.30
2.69
1.89
2.15


2.54
0.09 (18)
-0.04 (19)
0.92 (17)
2.07 (11)
n.a.
1.81 (13)
1.11 (16)
2.88 (8)
2.35 (10)
1.20 (15)
1.48 (14)
1.90 (12)
2.84 (9)
4.83 (2)
4.14(3)
5.90 (1)
3.20 (7)
3.40 (5)
3.30 (6)
3.79 (4)


1.41
2.91
3.72
3.82
2.46
3.18
2.02
1.42
1.36
1.03
0.76
2.06
1.33
2.10
-0.94
1.01
0.81
-0.55
0.54
1.85
3.64


4.72
5.09 (5)
4.49 (10)
4.04(16)
3.90 (18)
5.04 (6)
5.60 (2)
4.09 (14)
4.10 (13)
4.88 (8)
3.31 (19)
4.09 (14)
5.33 (3)
4.93 (7)
4.36 (11)
3.94 (17)
5.90 (1)
3.28 (20)
4.78 (9)
4.29 (12)
5.32 (4)


Notes: Estimates for 2002 are preliminary. Shaded areas denote top quartile ranking. Pensacola MSA (Escambia and Santa Rosa
Cos.), Ft. Walton Beach MSA (Okaloosa Co.); Panama City MSA (Bay County), Tallahassee MSA (Leon and Gadsden Cos.), Gainesville
MSA (Alachua Co.[adeq data not avail all periods]), Jacksonville MSA (Clay, [adeq. data not avail, for Duval], Nassau, and St. Johns
Cos.), Ocala MSA (Marion Co.), Daytona Beach MSA (Flagler and Volusia Cos.), Orlando MSA (Lake, Orange, Osceola, and Seminole
Cos.), Melbourne-Titusville MSA (Brevard Co.), Lakeland MSA (Polk Co.), Tampa-St.Petersburg MSA (Hernando, Hillsborough, Pasco,
and Pinellas Cos.), Sarasota-Bradenton MSA (Manatee and Sarasota Cos.), Punta Gorda MSA (Charlotte Co.), Ft. Myers-Cape Coral
MSA (Lee Co.), Naples MSA (Collier Co.), Ft. Pierce-Port St. Lucie MSA (Martin and St. Lucie Cos.), West Palm Beach-Boca Raton MSA
(Palm Beach Co.), Ft. Lauderdale MSA (Broward Co.), and Miami MSA (Dade Co.)


inflation-adjusted
house price =a + bX+ e
appreciation

where:

* a = estimated vector of coefficients
corresponding to each MSA

* b = estimated regression coefficient

* e = estimation error

* X = vector of independent
economic and demographic
variables


The reported figures are the
estimated regression coefficients.6 T-
statistics, which measure the statistical
significance of the explanatory
variables, are reported in parentheses.

The first column of Table 5.12
contains results for the 1981 to 2001
time period using only the six largest
Florida MSAs: Ft. Lauderdale,
Jacksonville, Miami, Orlando, Tampa-
St. Petersburg, and West Palm Beach.
This sample contains 124 observations.


The fixed-effects estimation procedure is equivalent to using ordinary least squares with (indicator) variables to
capture the effects of being located in a particular MSA. The model dummy assumes, effectively, that the effect
of the explanatory variables on house prices appreciation is the same in all MSAs. Unexplained variation in
appreciation, presumably due to omitted explanatory variables, is not assumed to be constant across MSAs, and
is captured in intercept terms that vary across the MSAs. These MSA intercept terms are not reported here, but
are available upon request.


2001-02
(rank)

8.08
2.17 (20)
3.27 (19)
7.90 (9)
7.02 (13)
5.28 (16)
7.54 (12)
4.51 (18)
7.60 (11)
6.18 (15)
6.65 (14)
4.67 (17)
7.75 (10)
8.88 (5)
8.66 (6)
8.54 (7)
11.52 (2)
8.54 (7)
10.54 (4)
11.87 (1)
10.68 (3)























ET1. 7 Hu Sc for -d -t *1SSs A(


All All Non MSA MSA MSA MSA MSA MSA MSA MSA
FL MSA MSA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Flor Pens Ft.W Pana Tall Gain Jack Ocal Dayt


1.000 1.000
1.072 1.074
1.098 1.099
1.129 1.130
1.160 1.159
1.183 1.183
1.205 1.205
1.245 1.244
1.282 1.281
1.321 1.318
1.343 1.341
1.334 1.331
1.332 1.327
1.357 1.353
1.410 1.405
1.444 1.437
1.494 1.488
1.534 1.528
1.614 1.606
1.699 1.692
1.817 1.809
1.960 1.954
2.119 2.113


1.000
1.047
1.084
1.107
1.166
1.176
1.206
1.270
1.312
1.365
1.391
1.387
1.416
1.446
1.506
1.564
1.604
1.666
1.759
1.834
1.966
2.085
2.236


1.000
1.078
1.124
1.125
1.169
1.227
1.216
1.223
1.209
1.230
1.232
1.210
1.253
1.292
1.358
1.420
1.502
1.567
1.650
1.738
1.820
1.851
n.a


1.000 1.000
1.063 1.030
1.130 1.052
1.204 1.104
1.222 1.194
1.255 1.156
1.230 1.214
1.276 1.218
1.283 1.225
1.283 1.214
1.250 1.208
1.305 1.257
1.328 1.309
1.391 1.338
1.488 1.382
1.500 1.457
1.621 1.532
1.686 1.582
1.715 1.678
1.762 1.777
1.865 1.774
1.915 1.927
n.a n.a


1.000
1.073
1.113
1.139
1.147
1.147
1.142
1.149
1.201
1.226
1.269
1.287
1.318
1.318
1.384
1.432
1.520
1.537
1.594
1.641
1.732
1.806
n.a


n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
1.343
1.390
1.392
1.447
1.496
1.570
1.659
1.741
1.788
1.893
2.008
2.113
n.a


1.000 1.000
1.182 1.038
1.250 1.119
1.270 1.056
1.354 1.123
1.418 1.133
1.412 1.104
1.465 1.176
1.515 1.165
1.553 1.187
1.550 1.194
1.536 1.190
1.552 1.167
1.615 1.224
1.648 1.259
1.712 1.280
1.778 1.335
1.858 1.370
1.959 1.413
2.098 1.485
2.247 1.563
2.426 1.634
n.a n.a


Note: 2002 values are preliminary.


1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002


1.000
1.076
1.067
1.109
1.151
1.177
1.220
1.261
1.293
1.332
1.356
1.360
1.366
1.402
1.411
1.451
1.461
1.502
1.567
1.640
1.772
1.909
n.a


























MSA MSA MSA MSA MSA MSA MSA MSA MSA MSA MSA MSA
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Orla Melb Lake Tamp Sara Punt Ft.M Napl Ft.P WPB Ft.L Miam


1.000 1.000
1.045 1.076
1.071 1.084
1.097 1.129
1.128 1.143
1.162 1.166
1.183 1.187
1.186 1.193
1.200 1.226
1.236 1.262
1.233 1.254
1.202 1.266
1.224 1.265
1.226 1.301
1.249 1.349
1.280 1.388
1.292 1.427
1.328 1.464
1.362 1.539
1.422 1.623
1.505 1.696
1.599 1.775


1.000
1.106
1.136
1.187
1.232
1.259
1.305
1.338
1.358
1.379
1.383
1.358
1.366
1.388
1.443
1.476
1.516
1.564
1.654
1.761
1.912
2.080


1.000
1.067
1.086
1.107
1.142
1.161
1.188
1.216
1.250
1.300
1.335
1.344
1.349
1.399
1.440
1.481
1.533
1.584
1.664
1.754
1.883
2.068


1.000 1.000
1.045 1.102
1.056 1.080
1.021 1.081
1.021 1.101
1.028 1.101
1.063 1.143
1.106 1.173
1.132 1.224
1.240 1.300
1.299 1.348
1.266 1.366
1.227 1.371
1.244 1.363
1.258 1.377
1.238 1.417
1.274 1.421
1.302 1.472
1.335 1.521
1.419 1.590
1.531 1.717
1.684 1.872


1.000
1.217
1.169
1.259
1.199
1.222
1.291
1.354
1.382
1.533
1.624
1.596
1.620
1.577
1.668
1.687
1.716
1.789
1.900
2.031
2.243
2.502


1.000
1.108
1.131
1.168
1.091
1.112
1.143
1.180
1.244
1.283
1.302
1.293
1.262
1.228
1.265
1.265
1.269
1.317
1.353
1.402
1.485
1.627


1.000
1.081
1.093
1.114
1.128
1.140
1.171
1.195
1.271
1.307
1.346
1.315
1.293
1.316
1.351
1.381
1.410
1.447
1.523
1.619
1.743
1.926


1.000 1.000
1.032 1.098
1.079 1.101
1.088 1.107
1.094 1.110
1.098 1.109
1.139 1.141
1.188 1.186
1.230 1.244
1.268 1.297
1.291 1.335
1.282 1.354
1.290 1.331
1.339 1.410
1.369 1.541
1.414 1.591
1.446 1.666
1.475 1.715
1.537 1.789
1.606 1.908
1.742 2.061
1.948 2.306


n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a n.a


1.000
1.069
1.100
1.163
1.219
1.255
1.269
1.301
1.335
1.378
1.409
1.404
1.387
1.416
1.444
1.482
1.518
1.566
1.646
1.739
1.879
2.002











The I.


All All Non MSA MSA MSA MSA MSA MSA
FL MSA MSA 1 2 3 4 5 6
Flor Pens Ft.W Pana Tall Gain Jack

1981 7.25 7.38 4.70 7.82 6.27 3.01 7.26 n.a. 18.20
1982 2.42 2.37 3.54 4.22 6.29 2.11 3.77 n.a. 5.78
1983 2.78 2.81 2.09 0.08 6.60 4.99 2.37 n.a. 1.61
1984 2.71 2.58 5.36 3.91 1.52 8.13 0.66 n.a. 6.55
1985 1.99 2.05 0.85 4.96 2.65 -3.22 -0.03 n.a. 4.77
1986 1.89 1.86 2.57 -0.88 -1.95 5.07 -0.42 n.a. -0.42
1987 3.29 3.19 5.28 0.59 3.69 0.30 0.61 n.a. 3.76
1988 3.02 3.01 3.33 -1.17 0.57 0.61 4.57 n.a. 3.36
1989 2.97 2.92 4.01 1.73 -0.02 -0.97 2.02 n.a. 2.53
1990 1.74 1.73 1.92 0.17 -2.51 -0.43 3.54 n.a. -0.18
1991 -0.69 -0.72 -0.26 -1.76 4.33 4.02 1.42 3.46 -0.89
1992 -0.18 -0.30 2.09 3.55 1.78 4.11 2.35 0.15 1.03
1993 1.92 1.91 2.12 3.09 4.75 2.27 0.02 3.92 4.02
1994 3.88 3.87 4.13 5.14 6.97 3.30 5.02 3.40 2.09
1995 2.38 2.30 3.83 4.55 0.80 5.38 3.47 4.98 3.85
1996 3.49 3.54 2.58 5.80 8.12 5.16 6.17 5.64 3.85
1997 2.71 2.64 3.86 4.31 4.00 3.24 1.06 4.95 4.52
1998 5.17 5.15 5.58 5.32 1.74 6.07 3.74 2.72 5.42
1999 5.25 5.31 4.23 5.34 2.71 5.94 2.93 5.88 7.11
2000 6.96 6.94 7.24 4.68 5.87 -0.19 5.58 6.04 7.09
2001 7.89 7.99 6.02 1.72 2.69 8.65 4.27 5.23 7.97
2002 8.11 8.16 7.25 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.


Note: 2002 values are preliminary.


Sof Annual Appreciatio Rate bet n A( 1 20 0


All Non MSA MSA MSA MSA MSA MSA
MSA MSA 1 2 3 4 5 6
Pens Ft.W Pana Tall Gain Jack


Flor 1.00
MSA 1.00
Non 0.80
Pens 0.46
Ft.W 0.27
Pana 0.20
Tall 0.60
Gain 0.60
Jack 0.75
Ocal 0.45
Dayt 0.82
Orla 0.88
Melb 0.79
Lake 0.80
Tamp 0.93
Sara 0.93
Punt 0.69
Ft.M. 0.73
Napl 0.71
Ft.P. 0.73
W.P. 0.93
Ft.L 0.76
Miam 0.82


1.00
0.45 1.00
0.10 0.07
0.44 0.41
0.21 0.32
0.67 0.35
0.52 0.31
0.19 -0.02
0.39 0.26
0.52 0.11
0.50 0.36
0.52 0.30
0.35 0.12
0.09 -0.17
0.10 -0.20
0.21 0.06
0.10 0.16
0.23 0.01
0.09 0.04
0.26 0.24


1.00
0.09
0.00
0.12
0.05
0.18
0.16
0.18
0.26
0.30
0.26
-0.14
0.05
-0.07
-0.13
0.14
0.18
0.15










MSA MSA MSA MSA MSA MSA MSA MSA MSA MSA MSA MSA MSA MSA


7 8 9 10
Ocal Dayt Orla Melb

3.75 7.65 6.86 4.49
7.83 -0.87 2.91 2.51
-5.56 3.96 5.79 2.42
6.25 3.72 4.80 2.80
0.91 2.30 2.92 3.05
-2.56 3.67 1.17 1.76
6.56 3.32 2.52 0.29
-0.93 2.52 2.60 1.16
1.89 3.09 3.19 3.02
0.58 1.80 2.25 -0.24
-0.30 0.26 -0.32 -2.54
-1.93 0.48 -1.22 1.85
4.83 2.61 2.05 0.15
2.90 0.62 2.01 1.86
1.63 2.84 2.60 2.49
4.35 0.71 2.43 0.94
2.59 2.80 3.19 2.79
3.12 4.31 5.10 2.59
5.13 4.69 5.63 4.40
5.26 8.00 8.07 5.83
4.51 7.73 6.55 6.22
n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.


11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Lake Tamp Sara Punt Ft.M Napl Ft.P WPB Ft.L Miam

7.63 10.56 6.72 4.48 10.19 21.67 10.84 8.11 3.25 9.75
0.67 2.78 1.75 1.04 -1.99 -3.95 2.01 1.07 4.51 0.33
4.23 4.43 1.98 -3.31 0.06 7.75 3.28 1.96 0.80 0.51
1.19 3.85 3.11 0.06 1.90 -4.80 -6.58 1.26 0.59 0.26
2.02 2.20 1.67 0.61 0.00 1.91 1.97 1.03 0.32 -0.09
1.77 3.60 2.37 3.46 3.80 5.65 2.79 2.71 3.74 2.89
0.50 2.54 2.34 4.06 2.62 4.91 3.17 2.05 4.30 3.97
2.80 1.51 2.77 2.35 4.37 2.11 5.44 6.38 3.59 4.90
2.97 1.53 3.97 9.52 6.23 10.88 3.10 2.89 3.05 4.22
-0.64 0.31 2.75 4.76 3.68 5.93 1.48 2.96 1.79 2.97
0.92 -1.82 0.65 -2.52 1.32 -1.70 -0.66 -2.31 -0.67 1.38
-0.08 0.60 0.34 -3.07 0.40 1.47 -2.43 -1.68 0.64 -1.63
2.89 1.62 3.74 1.34 -0.61 -2.66 -2.70 1.75 3.75 5.92
3.65 3.92 2.93 1.13 1.02 5.77 3.04 2.67 2.32 9.29
2.92 2.32 2.81 -1.57 2.90 1.18 0.00 2.27 3.22 3.24
2.77 2.73 3.57 2.91 0.24 1.73 0.33 2.09 2.27 4.68
2.61 3.11 3.30 2.22 3.61 4.25 3.78 2.60 1.99 2.98
5.11 5.81 5.05 2.49 3.31 6.18 2.73 5.25 4.26 4.30
5.49 6.46 5.40 6.29 4.54 6.90 3.59 6.33 4.49 6.63
4.47 8.56 7.35 7.89 8.02 10.46 5.97 7.62 8.43 8.03
4.67 8.80 9.82 9.98 9.03 11.52 9.51 10.54 11.87 11.90
n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.


MSA MSA MSA MSA MSA MSA MSA MSA MSA MSA MSA MSA MSA MSA
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Ocal Dayt Orla Melb Lake Tamp Sara Punt Ft.M Napl Ft.P W.P Ft.L Miam











1.00
0.15 1.00
0.34 0.84 1.00
0.28 0.73 0.78 1.00
0.12 0.70 0.74 0.64 1.00
0.33 0.85 0.87 0.84 0.82 1.00
0.43 0.84 0.80 0.75 0.72 0.84 1.00
0.43 0.59 0.52 0.54 0.36 0.51 0.77 1.00
0.12 0.84 0.61 0.60 0.58 0.68 0.79 0.73 1.00
-0.08 0.72 0.58 0.55 0.69 0.71 0.64 0.58 0.82 1.00
0.02 0.61 0.56 0.54 0.64 0.67 0.64 0.59 0.73 0.83 1.00
0.27 0.82 0.79 0.73 0.73 0.83 0.91 0.74 0.81 0.70 0.79 1.00
0.43 0.64 0.58 0.64 0.42 0.65 0.83 0.73 0.59 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
0.37 0.62 0.54 0.47 0.69 0.68 0.84 0.68 0.69 0.64 0.68 0.82 0.71 1.00









s ing



^^B{2003h^^


The estimated regression coefficient on
the change in population is 0.448. This
means that a 1-percent increase in this
population group in the urban areas is
associated with a 0.448 increase in the
inflation-adjusted price of single-family
housing. The estimated coefficient on
changes in real per capital income of
0.398 also indicates a positive
relationship to percentage changes in real
house prices. As expected, the level of
the nominal mortgage rate is negatively
associated with price changes. The
coefficient can be interpreted as an
increase of 1 percent in the rate results
in a reduction of the inflation-adjusted
house price of 0.5 percent. The
estimated coefficient on housing starts
is negative, suggesting that substantial
new housing supply slows house price
appreciation. Finally, changes in real
house prices in the previous year are
highly correlated with current changes.
In all cases the coefficient signs are found
to be consistent with expectations and
statistically significant.
The second column of Table 5.12
contains the results for the 1981 to 2001
period using data for all 20 MSAs. This
sample contains 405 observations.7
Relative to the regression using just the
six largest MSAs, the effects of the
economic variables retain their estimated
signs and, generally, their magnitudes. It
is noted that house price movements are
more sensitive to percentage changes in
population and housing starts in larger
urban areas. This appears to be
reasonable because large percentage
changes population and starts are not
easily achieved in the more populous
urban areas.
Taken together, the results of Table
5.12 are robust. Increases in the number
of individuals in their prime buying years
and increases in inflation-adjusted per
capital income have a significantly
consistent positive effect on inflation-
adjusted house prices. Increases in the
level of mortgage interest rates and


Observations were not available for all years for all MSAs (see Table 5.7).


housing starts have a consistent negative
effect on appreciation. In addition,
house price changes are persistent. These
regression results are consistent with
findings in the housing research
literature. The relative strength and
stability of the estimated coefficients,
along with the explanatory power of the
model, suggest that it can be used to
project reasonable estimates of future
house prices.
The historical regression analyses are
used to forecast the average annual rates
of price appreciation for each MSA over
the 2001 to 2010 period. For
comparison, the forecasts are reported
along with the average annual
appreciation rates for the previous 10-
year periods in Table 5.13. The
economic data required for the forecasts
comes from the Florida Long-Term
Economic Forecast, 2001 by the Bureau
of Business and Economic Research
(BEBR) at the University of Florida. The
Bureau's estimates of expected
population, real per capital income, and
housing starts are employed in our
appreciation forecasts. Mortgage rates are
assumed to average their 1996 to 2001
average level of approximately 7.50
percent for the 5-year period. To report
nominal appreciation, annual inflation
during the 2001 to 2010 period is
assumed to be 2.50 percent (again, the
average annual rate from 1996 to 2001).
It is important to note that forecasting
requires the assumption that the
historical relations between inflation-
adjusted price appreciation and the
explanatory variables such as population,
inflation-adjusted per capital income,
housing starts, mortgage rates, and past
appreciation continue into the future.
Certainly, this may be only a rough
approximation of the effect these
variables will actually have going forward.
In addition, the appreciation estimates are
based on the BEBR's underlying forecast
of the respective economic variables, as well
as the assumption that average interest rates







[Table50 Arge A a P ge Ag Rang By C9962001


County


1996-
2001


Fl.:.rjr 3 (.-Al C ,-,W iti'J --,i
Florida (All MSAs)
Florida (All non-MSA Counties)
Escambia Co. (Dist. 1, Pensacola MSA)
Santa Rosa Co. (Dist. 1, Pensacola MSA)
Okaloosa Co. (Dist. 1, Ft. Walton Beach MSA)
Bay Co. (Dist. 1, Panama City MSA)
District 1 Small Counties (Dist. 1)
Leon Co. (Dist. 2, Tallahassee MSA)
District 2 Small Counties (Dist. 2)
Alachua Co. (Dist. 3)
District 3 Small Counties (Dist. 3)
Clay Co. (Dist. 4, Jacksonville MSA)
Duval Co. (Dist. 4, Jacksonville MSA)
St. Johns Co. (Dist. 4, Jacksonville MSA)
District 4 Small Counties (Dist. 4)
Citrus Co. (Dist. 5)
Marion Co. (Dist. 5, Ocala MSA)
District 5 Small Counties (Dist. 5)
Volusia Co. (Dist. 6, Daytona MSA)
Lake Co. (Dist. 6, Orlando MSA)
Orange Co. (Dist. 6, Orlando MSA)


County


Occ---:ia Co:,. (Di-t. G, Oa ,-i.J 1S.:-
Seminole Co. (Dist. 6, Orlando MSA)
Brevard Co. (Dist. 6, Melbourne MSA)
Polk Co. (Dist. 7, Lakeland MSA)
District 7 Small Counties (Dist. 7)
Hernando Co. (Dist. 8, Tampa-St.P. MSA)
Hillsborough Co. (Dist. 8, Tampa-St.Pete. MSA)
Pasco Co. (Dist. 8, Tampa-St.Pete. MSA)
Pinellas Co. (Dist. 8, Tampa-St.Pete. MSA)
Manatee Co. (Dist. 8, Sarasota MSA)
Sarasota Co. (Dist. 8, Sarasota MSA)
Charlotte Co. (Dist. 9, Punta Gorda MSA)
Lee Co. (Dist. 9, Ft. Myers MSA)
Collier Co. (Dist. 9, Naples MSA)
District 9 Small Counties (Dist. 9.)
Indian River Co. (Dist. 10)
Martin Co. (Dist. 10, Ft. Pierce MSA)
St. Lucie Co. (Dist. 10, Ft. Pierce MSA)
Palm Beach Co. (Dist. 10, W Palm Beach MSA)
Broward Co. (Dist. 11, Ft. Lauderdale MSA)
Dade Co. (Dist. 11, Miami MSA)
Monroe Co. (Dist. 11)


Notes: Multi-county estimates may vary from MSA estimates due to small sample estimation error. Shaded areas denote top quartile return. Flagler, and
Duval Cos. not estimated due to insufficient data. District 1 small cos. are Holmes, Walton, and Washington. District 2 small cos. are Calhoun, Franklin,
Gadsden, Gulf, Jackson, Jefferson, Liberty, and Wakulla. District 3 small cos. are Bradford, Columbia, Dixie, Gilchrist, Hamilton, Lafayette, Madison,
Suwannee, Taylor, and Union. District 4 small cos. are Baker and Putnam. District 5 small cos. are Levy and Sumter. District 7 small cos. are De Soto,
Hardee, Highlands, Okeechobee. District 9 small cos, are Glades and Hendry.


and general inflation will be consistent with
the past 5-year period.
Average house price appreciation rates
for the state of Florida, reported in Table
5.13, are estimated to be 4.97 percent
per year (i.e., 2.47 percent above expected
inflation). In general, the highest annual
appreciation rates are forecast for the
southern portions of the state (e.g.,
Miami, 7.49%; Ft. Lauderdale, 6.84%;
and West Palm Beach, 6.27% per year).
Other MSAs that are forecast to
experience higher than average rates are
Tampa (6.04% per year) and Jacksonville
(6.07% per year). With the exception
of Panama City, lower than average house
price increases are forecast in the
northwestern portion of the state, (e.g.,
Pensacola, Ft. Walton Beach, and
Tallahassee). The forecasted relative
annual appreciation ranking among the


six largest MSAs is Miami (7.49%); Ft.
Lauderdale (6.84%); West Palm Beach
(6.27%); Jacksonville (6.07%);
Tampa-St. Petersburg (6.04%); and
Orlando (5.23% per year)-all
projected to increase at rates higher
than the state's average.


1996-
2001


5.30
3.80
4.19
3.18
3.55
5.81
4.97
6.54
5.90
5.68
5.30
4.79
6.84
4.74
4.81
4.27
4.38
5.74
5.55
6.42
8.36







The State of Florida's Housing, 2003


Year FL Esca Sant Okal Bay D1sm Leon D2sm Alac D3sm


1996 3.49 5.43
1997 2.71 4.71
1998 5.17 5.70
1999 5.25 5.53
2000 6.96 4.00
2001 7.89 3.57


Year Semi Brev
1996 1.90 0.94
1997 3.64 2.79
1998 5.36 2.59
1999 4.64 4.40
2000 9.77 5.83
2001 6.47 6.22


7.37
2.85
4.35
4.40
6.99
-2.92


Polk
2.77
2.61
5.11
5.49
4.47
4.67


8.12 5.16
4.00 3.24
1.74 6.07
2.71 5.94
5.87 -0.19
2.69 8.65


D7sm Hern
0.66 0.74
2.79 3.19
4.46 2.84
0.67 2.91
4.74 5.92
5.74 5.72


0.09
7.28
4.76
8.11
7.64
-0.23


Hill
2.48
3.62
6.27
6.38
8.05
8.07


5.64
4.95
2.72
5.88
6.04
5.23


Mana
5.34
2.37
4.62
5.85
7.63
9.57


1.21
5.63
4.98
6.74
3.39
1.38


Sara
2.67
3.88
5.23
5.05
7.41
9.83


County Key:


FL: Florida (All Counties)
Esca: Escambia (Dist.1)
Sant: Santa Rosa (Dist. 1)
Okal: Okaloosa (Dist. 1)
Bay: Bay (Dist. 1)
D1sm: District 1 Small Cos.
Leon: Leon (Dist. 2)
D2sm: District 2 Small Cos.
Alac: Alachua (Dist. 3)
D3sm: District 3 Small Cos.


Clay: Clay (Dist. 4)
Duva: Duval (Dist. 4)
St.J: St. Johns (Dist. 4)
Citr: Citrus (Dist. 5)
Mari: Marion (Dist. 5)
D5sm: District 5 Small Cos.
Volu: Volusia (Dist. 6)
Lake: Lake (Dist. 6)
Oran: Orange (Dist. 6)
Osce: Osceola (Dist. 6)


Explanatory Variable

Pct. Annual Change in Population (Age 20-54)

Pct. Annual Change in Inflation-Adjusted Per Capita Income

Level of Nominal Mortgage Interest Rate

Housing Starts in Previous Year as Pct. of Total Households

House Price Appreciation in Previous Year


No. of Observation

Notes: The six largest MSAs are Ft. Lauderdale, Jacksonville, Miami, Orlando,
Tampa, and West Palm Beach. The figures reported are the estimated model
coefficients, b, with their t-statistics in parentheses. Estimated model: House
Price Appreciation = a + S bX, where b is the estimated coefficient, X the
vector of explanatory variables, and a the vector of dummy variables for each
of the respective MSAs. "*" indicates that the coefficient is statistically
significant atthe 95% confidence level. The house price appreciation equation
is estimated using a "fixed-effects" model that incorporates the time-series,













Clay Duvl St.J D4sm Citr Mari

2.00 n.a. 6.93 -0.24 -0.82 4.35
4.69 n.a. 4.97 2.88 2.52 2.59
3.08 n.a. 6.81 3.50 4.06 3.12
6.77 n.a. 7.94 4.39 3.47 5.13
5.75 6.64 7.04 6.06 6.33 5.26
4.36 9.63 10.69 4.54 4.36 4.51


Char Lee Coil Dgsm Indi Mart
2.91 0.24 1.73 11.76 5.05 -0.81
2.22 3.61 4.25 -3.61 1.01 3.70
2.49 3.31 6.18 3.05 5.94 3.93
6.29 4.54 6.90 9.87 5.06 3.88
7.89 8.02 10.46 4.73 7.60 5.73
9.98 9.03 11.52 2.64 4.21 9.18



Semi: Seminole (Dist. 6)
Brev: Brevard (Dist. 6)
Polk: Polk (Dist. 7)
D7sm: District 7 Small Cos.
Her: Hernando (Dist. 8)
Hill: Hillsborough (Dist. 8)
Pasc: Pasco (Dist. 8)
Pine: Pinellas (Dist. 8)
Mana: Manatee (Dist. 8)
Sara: Sarasota (Dist. 8)


D5sm Volu Lake Oran Osce

-0.24 0.79 1.05 3.04 2.84
2.88 2.87 5.45 2.70 1.78
3.50 4.42 4.38 5.23 3.75
4.39 4.61 4.99 6.22 6.25
6.06 7.99 7.83 7.81 4.86
4.54 7.88 3.27 7.02 6.94


St.L P.B. Brow Miam Monr
1.16 2.09 2.27 4.68 5.29
3.75 2.60 1.99 2.98 5.10
1.91 5.25 4.26 4.30 8.93
3.51 6.33 4.49 6.63 5.28
6.11 7.62 8.43 8.03 11.65
9.82 10.54 11.87 11.90 13.91



Char: Charlotte (Dist. 9)
Lee: Lee (Dist. 9)
Coll: Collier (Dist. 9)
D9sm: District 9 Small Cos.
Indi: Indian River (Dist. 10)
Mart: Martin (Dist. 10)
St.L: St.Lucie (Dist. 10)
P.Bch: Palm Beach (Dist. 10)
Brow: Broward (Dist. 11)
Miam: Miami (Dist. 11)
Monr. Monroe (Dist. 11)


I uF^a [m ilyHo usePhric e hUsingEconomuibaund


Six Largest
MSAs

0.448
(2.36)*
0.398
(5.96)*
-0.005
(-6.28)*
-0.955
(-3.39)*
0.609
(9.66)*

124


All
MSAs

0.274
(2.59)*
0.399
(8.27)*
-0.006
(-9.63)*
-0.469
(-2.79)*
0.354
(8.32)*

405


cross-sectional, nature of the data. This estimation procedure is equivalent to
using ordinary least squares with dummy (indicator) variables to capture the
effects of being located in a particular MSA. The model assumes, effectively,
that the effect of the explanatory variables on house price appreciation is the
same in all MSAs. Unexplained variation in appreciation, presumably due to
omitted explanatory variables, is not assumed to be constant across the MSAs,
and is captured in intercept terms that vary across the MSAs. These MSA
intercept terms are not reported here, but are available upon request.


























Metropolitan Statistical Area 1971-80 1981-90( 1991-00 2001-10
(rank) (rank) (rank) (rank)

Florida (All MSAs) 9.52 2.99 3.07 4.97
Pensacola MSA (Dist. 1) n.a. 2.14(16) 4.00 (4) 3.46 (19)
Ft. Walton Beach MSA (Dist. 1) n.a. 2.31 (15) 4.11 (2) 3.82 (17)
Panama City MSA(Dist. 1) n.a. 1.96 (18) 3.93 (5) 5.30 (6)
Tallahassee MSA (Dist. 2) n.a. 2.44(13) 3.18 (10) 4.58 (12)
Gainesville MSA (Dist. 3) n.a. n.a. 4.11 (2) 4.44 (13)
Jacksonville MSA (Dist. 4) 8.34 (6)* 4.60 (2) 3.81 (6) 6.07 (4)
Ocala MSA (Dist. 5) n.a. 1.87 (19) 2.76 (14) 3.34 (20)
Daytona Beach MSA (Dist. 6) n.a. 3.12 (5) 2.73 (15) 4.85 (11)
Orlando MSA (Dist. 6) 9.82 (3) 3.50 (3) 2.95 (13) 5.23 (7)
Melbourne-Titusville MSA (Dist. 6) n.a. 2.13(17) 2.04 (18) 4.44 (13)
Lakeland MSA (Dist. 7) n.a. 2.32 (14) 3.07 (11) 3.57 (18)
Tampa-St.Pete. MSA (Dist. 8) 8.76 (5) 3.33 (4) 3.33 (9) 6.04 (5)
Sarasota-Bradenton MSA (Dist. 8) n.a. 2.94 (9) 3.51 (7) 5.10 (8)
Punta Gorda MSA (Dist. 9) n.a. 2.70 (11) 1.71 (19) 4.97 (9)
Ft. Myers MSA (Dist. 9) n.a. 3.09 (6) 2.48 (17) 4.89 (10)
Naples MSA (Dist. 9) n.a. 5.20 (1) 3.36 (8) 4.27 (16)
Ft. Pierce MSA (Distr. 10) n.a. 2.75 (10) 1.37 (20) 4.42 (15)
West Palm Beach MSA(Dist. 10) 10.18 (1) 3.04 (7) 2.66 (16) 6.27 (3)
Ft. Lauderdale MSA (Dist. 11) 9.89 (2) 2.59 (12) 3.07 (11) 6.84 (2)
Miami MSA (Dist. 11) 9.73 (4) 2.97 (8) 4.48 (1) 7.49 (1)

Notes: Shaded areas denote top quartile ranking. *Data from previous report. Pensacola MSA (Escambia and Santa Rosa Cos.), Ft. Walton
Beach MSA (Okaloosa Co.); Panama City MSA (Bay County), Tallahassee MSA (Leon and Gadsden Cos.), Gainesville MSA (Alachua Co.), Jacksonville
MSA (Clay Nassau, and St. Johns Cos. [adeq. data not avail, for Duval]), Ocala MSA (Marion Co.), Daytona Beach MSA (Flagler and Volusia Cos.),
Orlando MSA (Lake, Orange, Osceola, and Seminole Cos.), Melbourne-Titusville MSA (Brevard Co.), Lakeland MSA (Polk Co.), Tampa-St.Petersburg
MSA (Hernando, Hillsborough, Pasco, and Pinellas Cos.), Sarasota-Bradenton MSA (Manatee and Sarasota Cos.), Punta Gorda MSA (Charlotte
Co.), Ft. Myers-Cape Coral MSA (Lee Co.), Naples MSA (Collier Co.), Ft. Pierce-Port St. Lucie MSA (Martin and St. Lucie Cos.), West Palm Beach-
Boca Raton MSA (Palm Beach Co.), Ft. Lauderdale MSA (Broward Co.), and Miami MSA (Dade Co.). 2001-2010 forecast based on model
estimates reported in Table 5.13 using projected economic and demographic data from the Bureau of Economic and Business Research at the
University of Florida.











(Northwest Flo t Stea F


District


District 1: West Florida
District 1: West Florida
District 1: West Florida
District 1: West Florida
District 1: West Florida
District 1: West Florida
District : West Floridaachee
District 2: Apalachee
District 2: Apalachee
District 2: Apalachee
District 2: Apalachee
District 2: Apalachee
District 2: Apalachee
District 2: Apalachee
District 2: Apalachee
District : N. Central Floridaachee
District 3: N. Central Florida
District 3: N. Central Florida
District 3: N. Central Florida
District 3: N. Central Florida
District 3: N. Central Florida
District 3: N. Central Florida
District 3: N. Central Florida
District 3: N. Central Florida
District 3: N. Central Florida
District 3: N. Central Florida
District 3: Northeast Florida
District 4: Northeast Florida
District 4: Northeast Florida
District 4: Northeast Florida
District 4: Northeast Florida
District 4: Northeast Florida
District : NoWitheast Floridacoochee
District 5: Withlacoochee
District 5: Withlacoochee
District 5: Withlacoochee
District : E. Central Floridaochee
District 6: E. Central Florida
District 6: E. Central Florida
District 6: E. Central Florida
District 6: E. Central Florida
District 6: E. Central Florida
District 6: E. Central Florida
District 6: E. Central Florida
District 7: Central Florida
District 7: Central Florida
District 7: Central Florida
District 7: Central Florida
District : Central Florida
District 8: Tampa Bay
District 8: Tampa Bay
District 8: Tampa Bay
District 8: Tampa Bay
District 8: Tampa Bay
District : Southwest FloridaBay
District 9: Southwest Florida
District 9: Southwest Florida
District 9: Southwest Florida
District 9: Southwest Florida
District 1: S outhwest Florida
District 10: Treasure Coast
District 10: Treasure Coast
District 10: Treasure Coast
District 11: TreaSouth Florida
District 11: South Florida
District 11: South Florida
District 11: South Florida


Paensaa '1
Pensacola
Pensacola
Ft. Walton Beach
Non-MSA county
Non-MSA county
Non-MSA county
Tallahassee
Tallahassee
Non-MSA county
Non-MSA county
Non-MSA county
Non-MSA county
Non-MSA county
Non-MSA county
Non-MSA county
Gainesville
Non-MSA county
Non-MSA county
Non-MSA county
Non-MSA county
Non-MSA county
Non-MSA county
Non-MSA county
Non-MSA county
Non-MSA county
Non-MSA county
Jacksonville
Jacksonville
Jacksonville
Jacksonville
Non-MSA county
Non-MSA county
Ocala
Non-MSA county
Non-MSA county
Non-MSA county
Melbourne
Daytona Beach
Daytona Beach
Orlando
Orlando
Orlando
Orlando
Lakeland
Non-MSA county
Non-MSA county
Non-MSA county
Non-MSA county
Tampa St. Petersburg
Tampa St. Petersburg
Tampa St. Petersburg
Tampa St. Petersburg
Sarasota Bradenton
Sarasota Bradenton
Punta Gorda
Naples
Ft. Myers
Non-MSA county
Non-MSA county
Ft. Pierce Port St. Lucie
Ft. Pierce Port St. Lucie
West Palm Beach
Non-MSA county
Ft. Lauderdale
Miami
Non-MSA county


Escambia
Santa Rosa
Okaloosa
Holmes
Walton
Washington
Gadsden
Leon
Calhoun
Franklin
Gulf
Jackson
Jefferson
Liberty
Wakulla
Alachua
Bradford
Columbia
Dixie
Gilchrist
Hamilton
Lafayette
Madison
Suwannee
Taylor
Union
Clay
Duval
Nassau
St. Johns
Baker
Putnam
Marion
Citrus
Levy
Sumter
Brevard
Flagler
Volusia
Lake
Orange
Osceola
Seminole
Polk
De Soto
Hardee
Highlands
Okeechobee
Hernando
Hillsborough
Pasco
Pinellas
Manatee
Sarasota
Charlotte
Collier
Lee
Glades
Hendry
Martin
St. Lucie
Palm Beach
Indian River
Broward
Dade
Monroe
79


County









s ing



^^B{2003h^^


6. Conclusion

Florida's 67 counties include 35 urban
counties and the 32 rural counties. The
urban counties can also be divided into
those that are a part of the six major
metropolitan areas and fifteen other
metropolitan areas. Dividing the
counties in this way is useful as a means
to understand Florida's housing. There
are also a number of differences in
housing characteristics between coastal
and non-coastal counties. These housing
differences reflect the differences in the
characteristics of the population in
different areas of the state. The
population of the state is growing, but
not uniformly. Different areas of the
state are also characterized by
differences in the distribution of
households by age, income, race,
ethnicity, and county of origin.
Single-family housing units dominate
the state, but condominiums are an
important source of housing in some
coastal counties and manufactured
housing plays a key role in rural counties
in the interior of the state. Relative to
other areas of the country, housing prices
in Florida are low. Appreciation rates
for single-family housing differ across the
state but have increased in recent years
in most areas. Indices of affordability
show that on average the affordability of
housing increased throughout the 1990s,
but declined in 2001. However, the
affordability index masks problems that
households with incomes below the
median income have in obtaining
suitable housing without paying more
than 30 percent of income toward
housing costs.


It is difficult to derive a single number
of housing need, and the 30 percent of
income standard may not be an
appropriate criteria to define
affordability. However, even if 50
percent is used as the standard, it is clear
that there is a substantial need in Florida.
The affordability calculations also
indicate that the most severe needs are
for households with incomes below 30
percent of median income. This is a
group that is difficult to reach with state
programs, but one that becomes even
more vulnerable with changes in the
federal public housing program.
While housing affordability is a
problem in Florida, substandard housing
is less pervasive. In part, this is a
reflection of a relatively young housing
stock in Florida that has been built in
response to the recent rapid growth of
the state. There are, however, areas of
older housing stock in the state that are
in need of rehabilitation and the aging
of the existing housing stock will lead to
additional needs for rehabilitation in the
coming years.







...............................
...............................
...............................
...............................
...............................
...............................
...............................
...............................
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............









































...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
























































































































































...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
................
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
























































































































































































































...............................................................................
...............................................................................
...............................................................................
...............................................................................

.................. .................. ...
...... ..
............ c



zhlq.-- ousing
Shim
.......................... ............ ..............................................
........................................................................................
.......................
...............................................................................................................
.. ... ...... ....
........................ b k m
........................ .. ..... 4


....................................... ...............................................
...............................................................................................................................
................
................ .................
.. .... .................
................ M m IliW I.I.A...703 .................
................ .................
................
..............................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................


REMO


R.M.da.3i 2w
... ......................... .................... .... ........................
..............................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................
..............................
.............................
..............

70 ..............
.............
..................................................................
.................................................
..............................
...............................................................................
...............................................................................
...............................................................................
...............................................................................




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2011 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated May 24, 2011 - Version 3.0.0 - mvs