Feature
by Bay Area Economics
The San Francisco Affordable Housing Study is a comprehensive analysis of current housing issues based on both published and primary data. It was commissioned by resolution of the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco in 2000 to be “neutral and fact-based,” per Ordinance No. 55-00. The designated Study Moderator is Mr. Joe Grubb, Executive Director of the San Francisco Rent Arbitration and Stabilization Board. The study is composed of the following parts:
- San Francisco Housing Data Book
- Citywide Tenant Survey
- Citywide Landlord Survey
Please note that this study focuses on a myriad of housing issues present in San Francisco, and is not intended to be a study of rent control.
Survey Methodology
The Tenant Survey was conducted by telephone,
using a sample of random telephone numbers. Calls were
made on evenings and weekends over a period of several
weeks in April and May 2002. In total, approximately
20,000 randomly generated phone numbers were called,
resulting in a total of 583 usable responses. Respondents
needing translation assistance to Spanish and Cantonese
were provided with survey personnel fluent in these
languages.
Demographic Characteristics
Based on the greater presence of children, seniors,
minorities, women, and disabled in subsidized/assisted
units, the findings here indicate the importance of
affordable units for retaining these groups in the city.
In addition to affordability issues for available market-rate
and rent-controlled units, there are proportionately
fewer suitable units (e.g., apartments with several
bedrooms) for many of these groups in the non-subsidized
rental stock.
Market Status
San Francisco’s rental housing stock is still
dominated by rent-controlled units. Over two-thirds
of the units occupied by survey respondents were classified
as rent-controlled; 13 percent were subsidized or assisted,
10 percent were market rate and the remainder were either
occupied by close relatives of the property owner or
their market status were undetermined.
Household Size and Type
San Francisco renter households tend to be small, a
finding indicated by both census data and survey responses.
To a great extent, this is a function of the available
rental housing stock, which consists largely of small
units. Rent-controlled units tend to have the smallest
households, followed by market-rate units, with subsidized/assisted
units being the largest of the three major market status
types. Not surprisingly, units occupied by persons living
alone were the most common household type found by the
Tenant Survey, representing 37 percent of all respondents.
Family households with children were most common in
subsidized/assisted units.
Children and Seniors in Household
In keeping with the small household size, less than
one-fifth of respondents reported children under 18
in their households. The proportion was largest in subsidized/assisted
units, where 35 percent of respondent households contained
children. The elderly were even less common in the respondent
households than children. As with children, the highest
proportion was found in subsidized/assisted units.
Ethnicity
Nearly two-thirds of respondents were white, with Asians,
African-Americans, and Latinos more or less distributed
equally among the remainder of respondents. The highest
proportion of whites was in rent-controlled units. African-Americans—one-fourth
of respondents—made up a relatively large proportion
of those surveyed in subsidized/assisted housing (chart
1).
Gender
Although women and men responded in equal numbers to
the survey, there was a slightly higher proportion of
female respondents in subsidized/assisted units, which
in conjunction with the presence of more children and
the elderly, may indicate more single-parent families
or elderly women living alone or in extended family
situations.
Disability Status
Approximately one in six respondent households reported
the presence of at least one person with a disability
or chronic illness. Over one-third of subsidized/assisted
units surveyed reported at least one person with a disability
or chronic illness.
Household Income
Renter households in San Francisco have a broad range
of incomes, with renters in every category from extremely
low to very high. Incomes were similar for market-rate
and rent-controlled units, but were Employment Status,
Place of Work, and Occupation Most respondents were
employed at the time of the survey. Nearly three-fourths
of respondents in market-rate and rent-controlled units
were working, while only about half of those in subsidized/assisted
units were working. The large majority of those employed
worked in San Francisco. Over half of all respondents
had management, professional or related occupations,
with most of the remainder in service, sales or office
occupations.
Tenant Mobility
Characteristics Like renters in most places, tenants
in San Francisco show a high level of mobility. Not
surprisingly, most were previously renters elsewhere.
Many found their current residence informally, and in
a short period of time (with the exception of those
in subsidized/assisted units). Very few are related
to the owner of their housing unit.
Length of Residence and Previous
Place of Residence
Over half of respondent households had occupied their
units only since the beginning of 1997, while approximately
one-quarter had been in their units for more than 10
years. While it might be expected that households would
be less mobile in rent-controlled units due to the desire
to keep lower rents, households in market-rate units
were actually less likely to have moved recently than
those in either rent-controlled or subsidized/assisted
units. Nearly two-thirds of respondents had moved from
elsewhere in San Francisco, a proportion that was fairly
consistent across all market status types.
Previous Tenure Status
Over three-fourths of respondents had rented at their
previous place of residence. This was the case for all
market- status types also. How Respondent Found Unit
Approximately half of the respondents found their units
through informal means, such as knowing a previous or
current tenant or knowing the landlord. Respondents
in subsidized/assisted units were most likely to use
informal means, while those in market-rate units were
the least likely (chart 3).
Length of Time to Find Unit
Perhaps one of the most interesting findings of the
survey was the period of time the respondents took to
find their current units. Over 40 percent reported finding
their housing units within one week or less, and 75
percent found their units within one month or less.
While surveyed market rate and rent-controlled households
followed this general pattern, those in subsidized/assisted
units tended to take longer, likely due to the extensive
waiting lists for much of this affordable housing stock
(see chart 4).
Relationship to Property
Owner Very few of the tenants surveyed (4 percent) were
related to the owner of their housing unit. Housing
Stock Characteristics Survey results regarding the housing
stock mirror conditions as documented by census data,
with responding tenants living in a variety of units
and building types. Interestingly, a significant proportion
of respondents were unsure about whether rent control
applied to their housing units, and others were likely
mistaken, based on their answers to other questions
on the survey.
Type of Unit
The large majority of San Francisco’s rental housing
stock as reported by survey respondents (and confirmed
by census data) is in multi-unit buildings. Most of
the remainder is single-family homes, with very few
living in lofts or other types of housing. Only 4 percent
of those surveyed reported that they lived in condominiums.
Age of Housing
A large majority of the city’s rental housing
is relatively old, again based on both survey responses
and census data. The surveyed market-rate-rental units
were evenly split between those built before and after
the beginning of 1980. By definition, the rent-controlled
units surveyed were all built prior to 1980. Nearly
three-fourths of the subsidized/assisted units were
also built prior to 1980.
Size of Building and Unit
San Francisco tenants live in a broad array of building
types, ranging from single-family homes to large apartment
buildings. In large part due to the types of units covered
by rent control and in subsidized housing developments,
a much higher proportion of respondents in market-rate
rentals live in single-family houses, over half as compared
to less than one-fifth in either rent-controlled or
subsidized/assisted units. More than 80 percent of the
surveyed units were small units of two bedrooms or less.
The lack of large units has a direct impact on the types
of households that can readily find rental housing in
San Francisco, leading to a high number of smaller and
non-family households, as discussed in the demographics
section.
Overcrowding
Based on survey results, slightly over 10 percent of
renter households are overcrowded, a finding echoed
by available census data. Market-rate units are least
likely to be overcrowded, with subsidized/assisted units
exhibiting the highest proportion of overcrowded units.
Sublease Status and Presence
of Landlord/Manager
Only 6 percent of respondents reported that they subleased
their living quarters, and the same percentage reported
that they subleased to someone else. Less than one in
five reported that their landlords lived in their buildings.
Nearly 40 percent of respondents reported that their
buildings had a manager other than the landlord.
Ownership Status
For each of the individual measures taken, the proportion
of units indicating government ownership (including
public housing), or otherwise affirming the presence
of some type of rent subsidy or assistance, was less
than 10 percent. In combination, these indicated that
13 percent of the respondent units were subsidized or
assisted.
Reported Rent Control Status
Nearly one-third of the respondents were unsure of the
rent control status of their units, and others may have
been mistaken, based on their responses to other questions
in the survey (see chart 5).
Housing Costs
Based on survey results, rent control does appear to
offer some protection against high rent burdens relative
to market-rate units, with lower median rents and a
pattern of lower rent burdens. While subsidized/assisted
units show much lower rents than market-rate or rent-controlled
units, this is offset to a large degree by much lower
household incomes, leaving most of these households
with high rent burdens.
Rent
Estimated median monthly gross rent (rent plus most
utilities) was $1,078 for all units; it was highest
for market-rate units, at $1,350, followed by rent-controlled
units at $1,094, with subsidized/assisted units showing
the lowest median gross rent at $785 (see chart 6 for
“contact rent” data).
Rent Burden
Nearly half of respondent households had rent-to-income
ratios (rent burdens) of 30 percent or more. A rent-to-income
ratio exceeding 30 percent is a commonly used threshold
to indicate excessive rent burden.
Households Tenant Satisfaction
Overall, tenants were satisfied with most aspects of
their housing situation. Market-rate respondents were
more satisfied for many items than respondents living
in rent-controlled units or subsidized/assisted units.
While still generally satisfied, tenants in rent-controlled
units were somewhat less satisfied with items relating
to maintenance and condition of their units. The only
item where a sizable number of respondents were very
dissatisfied was parking (not necessarily just landlord-provided
parking).
Rent
Responding tenants were generally satisfied with the
rent for their units. Over two-thirds of respondents
in each market- status category reported being either
somewhat satisfied or very satisfied.
Size, Location, and Condition
of Unit and Building
Over 80 percent of those surveyed were satisfied with
the size of their units. Market rate units showed the
most satisfied respondents. Ninety percent of respondents
were satisfied with the location of their units, and
well over half were very satisfied. The proportion of
respondents very satisfied with the condition of their
units and buildings was considerably lower than the
response for rent, size of unit, and location. The respondents
living in rent-controlled units were much less likely
to be very satisfied than those in either market-rate
or subsidized units.
Maintenance and Landlords’
Response to Maintenance Requests
Over 70 percent of respondents were satisfied with the
maintenance of their rental units, more or less evenly
split between those very satisfied and those somewhat
satisfied. Satisfaction levels were highest in market-rate
units, and lowest in rent-controlled units. With respect
to landlord/managers’ responses to maintenance
requests, nearly three-fourths of respondents were satisfied
for this item, with slightly below half being very satisfied.
Once again, respondents in market-rate units were most
satisfied, and those in rent-controlled units showed
the lowest satisfaction, albeit with nearly three fourths
showing some level of satisfaction.
Noise and Parking
Only about one in five respondents noted dissatisfaction
with noise from neighbors. Slightly over half were very
satisfied. Levels of satisfaction regarding noise from
traffic were slightly lower but still generally high.
Although over half of the respondents reported satisfaction
with parking, this item by far showed the highest percentage
who were very dissatisfied, at nearly thirty percent.
Market-rate respondents showed the highest and rent-controlled
respondents the lowest average level of satisfaction
with parking. Parking was not specified for only on-site
spaces, and could indicate a lack of on-street parking
as well.
Security of Building or Safety
of Neighborhood
Most of those surveyed were satisfied with the security
of their buildings, with nearly half being very satisfied.
Respondents in market-rate units were more likely to
be very satisfied than those in rent-controlled or subsidized/assisted
units. Most respondents were satisfied with safety in
their neighborhoods, with nearly half very satisfied.
Levels of satisfaction were considerably lower for subsidized/assisted
units.
Experience with Violations
of Ordinance
Fifteen percent of respondents stated that they had
personally experienced a violation of the Rent Ordinance.
While in some cases a violation may have involved more
than one issue, eviction-related violations appeared
to be most prevalent.
Tenant Interest in Home Ownership
A substantial minority of respondents reported that
they had considered purchasing a unit in the previous
three years. San Francisco was the location most considered,
and single-family houses were the unit type most commonly
sought. Given these two factors, combined with the price
of single-family housing in the city and the city’s
mix of housing types, this is not surprising that the
primary reason given for not purchasing was the inability
to afford the unit sought.
Consideration of Purchase
in Last Three Years
Somewhat under half (44 percent) of respondents reported
that they had considered the purchase of housing in
the previous three years. Interest was in both market-rate
and rent-controlled units at these general levels for
those surveyed. The level was much lower for respondents
in subsidized/assisted units.
Location and Unit Type Considered
for Purchase
San Francisco was considered as a potential purchase
location by slightly over half of the respondents, with
over one-third considering locations elsewhere in the
Bay Area. Ten percent or less of respondents had considered
locations elsewhere in California, elsewhere in the
U.S., or outside the U.S. Single-family houses were
the preferred housing type for purchase consideration,
with a sizable minority of respondents considering apartments
or condominiums. Live/work lofts were only considered
by 7 percent of respondents.
Reasons for Not Purchasing
Inability to afford the units sought was by far the
most common reason given by respondents for not having
purchased a unit.
Tenant Opinions of Ordinance
Success
Survey results show a mixed picture regarding tenant
opinions on the success of the Rent Ordinance in several
key areas. While over half of the respondents felt the
Rent Ordinance was successful in preventing excessive
rent increases and assuring property owners of fair
and adequate rents, less than half considered the Rent
Ordinance successful in preventing illegal evictions,
and only one-fourth believed the ordinance successfully
maintained affordable housing for special groups. In
addition, respondents who stated that they had no opinion
ranged from 20 percent to over one-third of the total,
(depending on which attribute of the ordinance was under
scrutiny), indicating a possible lack of knowledge or
concern regarding these particular housing issues.
Preventing Excessive Rent
Increases
Over half of the respondents considered the ordinance
successful in preventing excessive rent increases, with
those in rent-controlled units most likely to have considered
the ordinance successful in this area. However, 20 percent
of the respondents had no opinion on this aspect of
the ordinance.
Assuring Property Owners
of Fair and Adequate Rents
Over half of the respondents also considered the ordinance
successful in this area. However, 26 percent had no
opinion on this aspect of the ordinance.
Preventing Illegal Evictions
Respondents were somewhat less likely to rate the ordinance
successful in preventing illegal evictions, with less
than half of the opinion that the ordinance was successful
in this area. However, 34 percent reported having no
opinion on this aspect of the Rent Ordinance, a surprising
finding considering the reported increase in evictions
in the late 1990s and subsequent changes in the Rent
Ordinance to tighten eviction controls.
Maintaining Affordable Housing
for Special Groups
Respondents had a lower opinion of the success of the
ordinance in this area, with only about one quarter
believing the ordinance successful. Nearly half felt
it was unsuccessful, a far higher level than for any
of the other items. However, 27 percent had no opinion
on this aspect of the ordinance.
Reprinted courtesy of the San Francisco Rent Board. Produced by Bay Area Economics. For a complete version, please visit the San Francisco Rent Board Website. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of the SFAA or the SF Apartment Magazine. Copyright © 2003 San Francisco Apartment Magazine