ON PROGRESS: HOW DOES CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG COMPARE?

Last week’s blog post highlighted the recent shift in attention, energy, and investment in expanding affordable housing solutions, especially in response to COVID-19. In addition, the blog spotlighted the 2025 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Housing & Homelessness Strategy (CMHHS), which represents the first time that the public and private sector have come together to address the full housing continuum – from homelessness to households experiencing housing instability. This kind of approach is critical to produce solutions that are both comprehensive and sustainable, resulting in real progress.

Charlotte-Mecklenburg is not the only community facing challenges related to housing instability and homelessness. There are multiple communities working to address these challenges. Benchmarking local progress (or lack thereof) with that of other peer communities can be helpful as solutions are developed and/or outcomes are evaluated.

This week’s blog post describes how Charlotte-Mecklenburg compares with five peer communities on key housing and homelessness metrics; and what this may ultimately mean for the community.

COMPARING PROGRESS

The table below provides a high-level overview of how Charlotte-Mecklenburg compares with Continuums of Care in the five peer communities on the following key housing and homelessness performance metrics: length of time people experience homelessness; number of exits from homelessness to permanent housing; and returns to homelessness. These metrics help communities understand if they are making progress on the work to ensure that homelessness is rare, brief, and non-recurring. In addition, the table includes other helpful points of comparison and context: the number of people experiencing homelessness; gap of permanent, affordable housing units; percent of cost-burdened renter households; median household income; median monthly housing costs; and total population.

Sources for data in the table include: Peer City Identification Tool (Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago); CoC System Performance Measures Table FY15-FY19 (U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development); The 2020 Gap: A Shortage of Affordable Homes (National Low Income Housing Coalition).

OTHER DATA POINTS TO CONSIDER WHEN COMPARING COMMUNITIES

Austin, Texas

In comparison with Austin which has a larger overall population than Charlotte, Charlotte-Mecklenburg has fewer people experiencing homelessness, but with longer lengths of stay in emergency shelter. In addition, Charlotte-Mecklenburg has a smaller gap of affordable housing units for households with income at or below 30% of Area Median Income.

Below are additional contextual factors to note:

• Austin has recently extended the local protections against evictions to August 1, 2021.
• According to the Inclusionary Housing Map provided by Grounded Solutions Network, the state of Texas “prohibits mandatory inclusionary housing policies for ownership housing but permits voluntary inclusionary measures,” such as density bonuses. The city of Austin has 16 residential zoning codes, which include: single family; multifamily (limited density, low density, medium density; high density, and highest density).
• The City of Austin maintains an online affordable housing inventory that includes locations and contact information for affordable housing (with types and income restrictions required for certain units), along with a digital map version of the inventory to get a spatial relationship of available units.
• In 2017, the Austin City Council approved the Austin Strategic Housing Blueprint, which outlines a shared vision with proposed regulations, funding mechanisms, and steps required to create 60,000 affordable housing units for households with income at or below 80% of Area Median Income. According to the latest scorecard regarding the Blueprint, only 0.59% of the 20,000 unit goal for households with income at or below 30% of Area Median Income have been developed; to make up the gap by 2028 requires 2,199 units to be produced annually over the next nine years.
• In 2018, voters in Austin approved a $250 million affordable housing bond.

Columbus, Ohio

In comparison with Columbus, which has a larger overall population than Charlotte, Charlotte-Mecklenburg has fewer people experiencing homelessness, but with longer lengths of stay in emergency shelter. In addition, Charlotte-Mecklenburg has a smaller gap of affordable housing units for households with income at or below 30% of Area Median Income.

Below are additional contextual factors to note:

• According to the Eviction Lab’s COVID-19 Housing Policy Scorecard, the state of Ohio scores a 0 out of 5 for housing-related protections. Ohio has not issued any statewide orders against evictions or foreclosures during or immediately following the pandemic.
• According to the Inclusionary Housing Map provided by Grounded Solutions Network, the state of Ohio grants “constitutional home rule to localities, allowing them to pass laws to govern themselves, and some immunity from preemption of local laws by the state. Ohio statute neither expressly authorizes nor prohibits inclusionary measures.”
• In addition to single family zoning, the city of Columbus has multi-family residential zoning codes, which are termed as “apartment districts” and include: low density, limited medium density, medium density, and high density). The zoning code is currently undergoing a review process.
• The 2021-2023 Strategic Plan released in November 2020 by the Affordable Housing Alliance of Central Ohio (AHACO) aims to cut the 54,000-household affordability gap in half by 2028. According to the 2021 Winter Scorecard, over $226 million has been raised to develop new homes, preserve existing homes and stabilize households; the affordability gap has been reduced by 3,040 units.
• In 2019, voters approved the first ever affordable housing bond, totaling $50 million.

Indianapolis, Indiana

In comparison with Indianapolis, which has a larger overall population than Charlotte, Charlotte-Mecklenburg has more people experiencing homelessness with longer lengths of stay in emergency shelter. In addition, Charlotte-Mecklenburg has a smaller gap of affordable housing units for households with income at or below 30% of Area Median Income.

Below are additional contextual factors to note:

• According to the Eviction Lab’s COVID-19 Housing Policy Scorecard, the state of Indiana scores a 0.5 out of 5 for housing related protections. Indiana issued a statewide order against evictions in March 2020 at the onset of the pandemic; this order expired in August 2020.
• According to the Inclusionary Housing Map provided by Grounded Solutions Network, the state of Indiana “preempts mandatory inclusionary housing policies, [but] permits voluntary inclusionary measures”.
• The latest zoning ordinance in Indianapolis dates to 2015. Among the changes that were enacted include the addition of new housing types such as secondary dwelling units, triplexes, fourplexes, and single family attached/townhomes.
• In 2018, the Indianapolis Continuum of Care released a five-year strategic plan to end homelessness. Their goal is that by 2023, no one who falls into homelessness will spend more than 30 days without a permanent, affordable place to live.

Jacksonville, Florida

In comparison with Jacksonville, which has a larger overall population than Charlotte, Charlotte-Mecklenburg has more people experiencing homelessness with similar lengths of stay in emergency shelter. In addition, Charlotte-Mecklenburg has a much larger gap of affordable housing units for households with income at or below 30% of Area Median Income.

Below are additional contextual factors to note:

• According to the Eviction Lab’s COVID-19 Housing Policy Scorecard, the state of Florida scores a 0.5 out of 5 for housing related protections. Florida issued a statewide eviction moratorium in April 2020; but, this expired in October 2020.
• According to the Inclusionary Housing Map provided by Grounded Solutions Network, the state of Florida has “home rule authority, granting jurisdictions the authority to pass laws to govern themselves. Florida statutes expressly authorize local mandatory inclusionary housing measures but require that jurisdictions provide incentives that fully offset all costs to the developer of its affordable housing contribution”.
• In 1992, the Florida Legislature enacted the William E. Sadowski Affordable Housing Act, which created a dedicated revenue source for affordable housing by “increasing the documentary stamp tax paid on the purchase price of all residential and commercial deeds”. This funding supports local and state housing trust funds. According to the 2020 Home Matters Report, “each dollar of the Sadowski State and Local Housing Trust Funds leverages $4 to $6 in private investment, federal tax credits, and other funding sources.”
• On June 9, 2020, Governor DeSantis signed House Bill 1339, which was introduced by a representative of a district that covers a portion of Jacksonville, authorizing local governments to approve the development of affordable housing on any land zoned for residential, commercial, or industrial use. Included in the bill is the authority of local governments to adopt an ordinance allowing accessory dwellings in areas zoned for single-family use, and which must be rented at an affordable rate to low-income households; and an updated definition of affordable housing to include non-profit entities.
• The Shimberg Center for Housing Studies at the University of Florida established the Florida Housing Data Clearinghouse, which provides access to multiple data points on housing need and supply across Florida. The information can be used by local jurisdictions to understand how many rental and homeownership units are needed. According to the latest data, there is a deficit of more than 24,000 units for households with income at or below 30% of Area Median Income.

Nashville, Tennessee

In comparison with Nashville, which has a smaller overall population than Charlotte, Charlotte-Mecklenburg has less people experiencing homelessness, but with longer lengths of stay in emergency shelter. In addition, Charlotte-Mecklenburg has a much larger gap of affordable housing units for households with income at or below 30% of Area Median Income.

Below are additional contextual factors to note:

• According to the Eviction Lab’s COVID-19 Housing Policy Scorecard, the state of Tennessee scores a 0.5 out of 5 for housing related protections. Tennessee issued a statewide eviction moratorium in March 2020; this expired in June 2020. On May 13, 2021, Mayor Cooper announced the creation of a Landlord Risk Mitigation Fund, a public-private venture to help households access and sustain housing.
• According to the Inclusionary Housing Map provided by Grounded Solutions Network, the state of Tennessee “expressly preempts mandatory inclusionary housing policies and rent control. State law also prohibits local governments from imposing housing price constraints on developers in exchange for granting additional development rights like increased density or height. Local governments may only use financial assistance (e.g. tax incentives) in a voluntary inclusionary housing policy.” Nashville has an Incentive Policy, which pays developers the difference between what the income generated from the affordable units and the income the units would have generated if they had been priced at the market rate, in exchange for making a portion of the units affordable.
• In 2013, Nashville created the Barnes Housing Trust Fund. According to the 2020 progress report, since its inception, the fund has invested $44 million in the preservation and creation of affordable housing. In addition, the report notes that the public investment has raised over $234 million in private sector investment. This has resulted in the development or presentation of 2,240 units to date.
• In 2019, the Nashville Continuum of Care released a three-year housing and homelessness strategic plan (July 2019 – June 2022). In addition to reducing homelessness by 25%, the community seeks to end homelessness by ensuring that any person who falls into homelessness is able to regain housing in fewer than 90 days.
• In January 2021, Mayor Cooper announced the launch of an Affordable Housing Task Force to focus on policy, access, financing, and land use. Recommendations from the task force ultimately informed the Mayor’s proposed 2021-2022 budget, including tripling the city’s investment in affordable housing to a total of $37.5 million.

SO, WHAT

Comparing the current state of housing (need; supply; policies, etc.) in Charlotte-Mecklenburg as well as the progress related to those factors can lead to the following insights:

• Charlotte-Mecklenburg is not the only community facing housing instability and homelessness. It is a national (and global) issue, which necessitates a commensurate federal, state, and local response.
• Some communities have fared worse; some are doing better. Charlotte-Mecklenburg can learn from exploring what communities have done on both sides of the spectrum to do more of what is working and less of what is not working.
• In addition to measuring how Charlotte-Mecklenburg performs over time, Charlotte-Mecklenburg can continue to benchmark its progress against that of other communities. This information could lead to a desire to increase or decrease goals as well as speed up or slow down time frames to achieve goals.

But, having metrics by which to measure progress does not necessarily lead to results.

Peer city/community comparisons encourage communities like Charlotte-Mecklenburg to constantly be considering the question, “What else?” Until we effectively resolve housing instability and homelessness, what else must we do? What else should we do? What can we do differently? What can we do better?

The households in need, in Charlotte-Mecklenburg and elsewhere, depend on both the answers to these questions and action that can lead to change.