HomeMy WebLinkAboutComplete Housing StudyCENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY | INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
1
CENTRAL INDIANAHOUSING STUDY
INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY | INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
2
TITLE VI STATEMENT
The Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organi-
zation (IMPO) values each individual’s civil rights
and wishes to provide equal opportunity and
equitable service. As a recipient of federal funds,
the IMPO conforms to Title VI of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 (Title VI) and all related statutes,
regulations, and directives, which provide that no
person shall be excluded from participation in,
denied benefits of, or subjected to discrimination
under any program or activity receiving federal fi-
nancial assistance from the IMPO on the grounds
of race, color, age, sex, sexual orientation, gen-
der identity, disability, national origin, religion,
income status or limited English proficiency. The
IMPO further assures every effort will be made to
ensure nondiscrimination in all of its programs
and activities, regardless of whether those pro-
grams and activities are federally funded. For any
and all inquiries regarding the application of this
accessibility statement and related policies, please
view the IMPO Title VI page, indympo.org/poli-
cies.
LANGUAGE ACCESS
If information is needed in another language,
contact 317-327-5136. Si se necesita información
en otro idioma, comuníquese con 317-327-5136.
INDOT/FHWA
This plan was prepared in cooperation with the
State of Indiana, the Indiana Department of
Transportation, and the Federal Highway Ad-
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY | INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
3
Acknowledgements
IMPO STAFF
Andrea Miller, MPA, Senior Planner
Jennifer Higginbotham, AICP, Principal Planner
Rose Scovel, ACIP, Principal Planner
Danielle Frey, Engagement Specialist
Sean Northup, Deputy Director
STEERING COMMITTEE
Addison Pollock
Amandula Anderson
Andrea Davis
Andrew Klinger
Ben Lipps
Beth Neville
Bill Peeples
Brad Coffing
Brandon Knox
Brooke Thomas
Bryan Conn
Carmen Lethig
Caroline Kimmel
Dani Miller
Denise Aschelman
Drake Branda
Gina Miller
Jack Swalley
Jeff Barnett
Joe Csikos
Kelley Romweber
Marcia Lewis
Marjorie Hennessy
Mary Jones
Matt Nowlin
Megan Vukusich
Pat Gamble-Moore
Rob Evans
Ryan Reding
Samantha Spergel
Sarah Ford
Sarah Reed
Todd Barker
Tony Bagato
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY | INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
4
PARTICIPATING
ORGANIZATIONS
AARP Indiana
Archdiocese of Indianapolis
BJN Carter Properties
Boone County
Boone County Economic Development
Builders Association of Greater
Indianapolis (BAGI)
Central Indiana Community
Foundation (CICF)
Central Indiana Regional
Transportation Authority (CIRTA)
CICOA Foundation, Inc.
City of Beech Grove
City of Carmel
City of Fishers
City of Franklin
City of Greenfield
City of Greenwood
City of Indianapolis
City of Lawrence
City of Noblesville
City of Southport
City of Westfield
Community Alliance of the Far Eastside
(CAFE)
Develop Indy
Englewood Community Development
Corporation
Fair Housing Center of Central Indiana
Firefly Children and Family Alliance
Flaherty & Collins Properties
Gradison Design Build
Hamilton County
Hamilton County Area Neighborhood
Development (HAND)
Hancock County
Hancock County Economic
Development Corporation
Health by Design
Hendricks County
Herd Strategies
IFF Indianapolis
Indiana Economic Development
Corporation (IEDC)
Indiana Housing and Community
Development Authority (IHCDA)
Indiana Realtors Association
Indianapolis Housing Agency (IHA)
Indianapolis Neighborhood Housing
Partnership (INHP)
Indianapolis Urban League
Indy Black Chamber of Commerce
Indy Partnership
IndyGo
Invest Hamilton County
Johnson County
Kheprw Institute
Kittle Property Group
Lennar Homes
Town of McCordsville
M/I Homes
Merchants Affordable Housing
MIBOR REALTOR Association
MLK Center Indy
Morgan County
Onyx + East
PNC Bank
Prosperity Indiana
Pyatt Builders
Red Carpet Living Properties
Shelby County
Shelby Senior Services
Tangram
Town of Avon
Town of Bargersville
Town of Bargersville
Town of Brooklyn
Town of Brownsburg
Town of Cicero
Town of Cumberland
Town of Danville
Town of Mooresville
Town of New Palestine
Town of New Whiteland
Town of Pittsboro
Town of Plainfield
Town of Speedway
Town of Whiteland
Town of Whitestown
Town of Zionsville
United Way of Central Indiana
United Way Johnson County
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY | INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
5
STAKEHOLDERS
Abby Swift
Allison Luthe
Alvin Sangsuwangul
Amy Wunder
Andrew Bradley
Aryn Schounce
Aspen Clemons
Becky Allen
Brandi-Janai Carter
Caleb Gutshall
Carmen Young
Cheria Caldwell
Chris Pryor
Chrissy Koenig
Christina Arrom
Christine Owens
Chuck Haberman
Dan Zuerner
Dan Zuerner
Dana Monson
Dave Moore
David Krieg
Denise Herd
Desiree Calderella
Donata Duffy
Eric Berg
Erica Boyd
Erika Scott
Ethan Pierce
Ethan Spalding
Frank Zawadzki
Gabriel Nelson
Hafsa Razi
Jack Swalley
Janice Stevanovic
Jerrod Klein
Jessica Inabnitt
Jim Cooney
Jim Robinson
Joan Fitzwater
Jodi Dickey
Joe Bowling
John Taylor
Jonathan Issacs
Joseph Csikos
Josh Peters
Karlin Tichenor
Kayla Brooks
Kevin Todd
Kevin Whaley
Kim Koel
Krista Linke
Larry Williams
Lashonda McKinney
Lauren Gillingham
Lesa Ternet
Mark Gradison
Mike Dale
Mike Dellinger
Mike Hollibaugh
Mike Thibideau
Nancy Heck
Owen Young
Paul Summers
Randy Sorrell
Ross Hilleary
Ryan Crum
Ryan Wilhite
Sam Criss
Shannon Norman
Susanna Taft
Todd Barker
Todd Cook
Tony Mason
Vincent Ash
Wahid Ahmed
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY | INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
6
Contents
3 Acknowledgements
CONTENTS
8 Introduction and Overview of the Project
LOCAL HOUSING
PLAN AND POLICY
REVIEW
13 Overview
14 Regional Planning Reports
20 Local Housing Studies and Reports
25 Local Comprehensive Plans Overview
26 Recent State Legislation
SOCIOECONOMIC
PROFILE OF THE
REGION
33 Overview
34 Key Findings
35 Household Characteristics Overview
39 Community Vulnerabilities Overview
44 Jobs and Migration Overview
HOUSING MARKET
CONDITION REPORT
57 Overview
58 Key Findings
59 Development Patterns Overview
66 Current Housing Costs Overview
HOUSING DEMAND
AND GAP ANALYSIS
73 Overview
74 Key Findings
75 Methodology
80 Central Indiana Region
CONTRIBUTING
FACTORS
84 Overview
85 Transportation
88 Market Dynamics
92 Local Dynamics
95 Contributing Factors for Vulnerable
Populations
CORPORATE OWNED
SINGLE-FAMILY
HOUSING
104 Overview
105 Key Takeaways
106 History of Corporate Owned Single-
family Housing
111 Analysis on Impact of Corporate
Ownership
115 County Profiles
124 Corporate Profiles: Top 5
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY | INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
7
HOUSING TOOLKIT
AND NEXT STEPS
136 Overview
138 Toolkit Strategies: Establish a shared
understanding of the history and current
state of housing in Central Indiana
140 Toolkit strategy: Introduce a regional
housing study that connects communities
and promotes equity.
141 Toolkit strategy: Provide context and
guidance for public and government
leaders to inform public decision-making
on housing issues and policy.
142 Toolkit strategies: Support collaboration
and policy change at the local and
regional levels in promoting the vision.
143 Toolkit strategies: Support the creation
of the full continuum of housing types and
attainability across the region.
Contents
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 8
INTRODUCTION
Central Indiana has long had a reputation for
housing affordability, a characteristic that it proudly
advertises as one of the key components to a higher
quality of life relative to other markets in the United
States. One could pay a small fortune in mortgage
or rent in other areas – in many cases far exceeding
spending the typically recommended 30% of income
on housing – or you could live in Indiana, leaving
behind the budget crunch that those housing prices
cause. Increasingly, however, Central Indiana finds
itself in a new reality. While housing affordability for
the lowest-income groups has been a concern for
decades more and more middle-income, and even
high-income, households are finding themselves
struggling to keep pace with rising housing prices.
Between 2020 and 2022, the median sales prices of
single-family homes increased an average of 31.6%
across all IMPO counties. Rent prices increased by
an average of 21.2% over that same time period.
Meanwhile wages rose by only 8.8% on average.
Official numbers for 2023 haven’t been finalized, but
housing prices have continued to rise even as sales
volume has dropped.
Higher interest rates are often pointed to as the
primary driver behind the seemingly sudden crunch in
local housing affordability – a transitory phenomenon
that is entirely out of the hands of anyone other
than the Federal Reserve and is assumed will ease in
time. However, as this study will make clear, interest
rates are just an aggravating issue to a pre-existing
problem with a myriad of contributing factors.
The Central Indiana Housing Study (CIHS) provides a
current and comprehensive regional understanding
of housing. Multiple municipalities within the
Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organization’s
(IMPO) planning area have completed their own
housing study assessments, and various public
policy and housing organizations have conducted
studies looking at housing for certain sectors of the
population (e.g. low-income households) or focusing
on a smaller geographic scope (e.g. a singular
county). This housing study assesses housing across
all income groups, for renters and home-buyers,
across the 8-county Central Indiana region (Marion
County and the surrounding counties excluding
Madison County). It examines gaps in the markets,
identifies contributing factors, and provides a toolkit
of policy solutions that can be used as a starting point
to address identified issues.
ABOUT THE IMPO AND HOUSING STUDY
PROCESS
Who the IMPO Is and Intent of the Study
The Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organization
(IMPO) is a regional planning organization for Central
Indiana, covering 1,468 square miles, 42 jurisdictions,
and approximately 1.78 million residents. Originally
founded to organize transportation planning and
distribute certain federal funds, a 2018 strategic
planning process identified a need for a regional
coordinating planning entity that went beyond
transportation. Since that time the IMPO has
expanded to other subject matter including economic
development, traffic safety, sustainability, and –
now – housing. Due to limitations on what type of
data is available at the census tract vs county level
the Central Indiana Housing Study covers not only
its current planning area, but the entirety of the 8
counties it overlaps with. This also allows for seamless
updates far into the future as IMPO boundaries and
membership is updated.
Introduction and Overview
of the Project
74
65
70
65
74
70
69
465
NoblesvilleLebanon
Indianapolis
Greeneld
Shelbyville
Franklin
Martinsville
Danville
BOONE
SHELBY
MARION
MORGAN
HAMILTON
HENDRICKS
JOHNSON
HANCOCK
Legend
IMPO Urbanized Area (UA), Adjusted,
2020 Census
IMPO Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA), 2020 Census
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 9
The IMPO works through four core pillars to help our
members throughout the region:
1. Convene: Bring experts and community members
together
2. Inform: Provide reliable data to support planning
and policy-making
3. Plan: Create and adopt plans and track their
implementation
4. Fund: Fund regionally-significant transportation
projects
The CIHS is predominantly part of the “Inform”
pillar and recognizes that each city and town
within the IMPO’s boundaries possesses their own
Comprehensive Plan which guides their vision
and development, and a system of city planners,
planning commissioners, and other officials which
ultimately make decisions about development in
their communities. The Central Indiana Housing
Study does not dictate what each community should
do regarding housing, but instead seeks to provide
information to aid in Central Indiana’s continued
growth and vibrancy.
The IMPO intends to continue work in the housing
sphere primarily through the Inform and Convene
pillars – that is expanding on the information
provided in the CIHS, and by bringing together
stakeholders to work on these issues collectively.
Additional information on this is provided in the
“Solutions to the Housing Crisis” section of this
summary.
Project Timeline, Plan Components, and Engagement
The Central Indiana Housing Study launched in
January 2023 and took place throughout the rest
of 2023, with the full document released for public
comment in January 2024.
The main deliverables of the full CIHS can be loosely
grouped into the following “Phases”:
Phase 1: Laying the groundwork – Provides
foundational information that’s important in
providing regional context.
• Housing plan and policy review: Reviews previous
housing studies from around the region, as well
as providing a list of state level housing legislation
from the past ten years.
• Socioeconomic profile of the region: Examines
demographic patterns, employment and incomes,
population mobility, and more.
• Housing conditions assessment: Compiles analysis
of housing market conditions across the region
to inform the supply-side perspective of the
CIHS, includes development patterns and current
housing costs.
Phase 2: Identifying the problem – Provides an
assessment of the current issues the Central Indiana
region is facing in housing, and what factors motivate
it.
• Housing gap analysis and demand summary: An
analysis of housing and household characteristics
with growth projections and market preference
assessments to identify gaps in the current
housing supply.
• Contributing factors assessment: Compiles
contributing factors local stakeholders have
identified as particularly impactful.
• Investor-owned housing analysis: Investigates the
amount and impact of investor-owned housing
on housing prices and code violations.
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 10
Phase 3: Next steps – Provides a toolkit of various
policy options intended to help address the problems
identified in Phase 2 and provide potential next steps
the IMPO can take following the conclusion of the
study.
• Housing strategies toolkit and next steps:
Provides a variety of tools and housing strategies
that can be pursued to address the identified
issues. It also provides next steps that the IMPO
can take in continuing this effort.
• Training program development: a curriculum for
citizen planners, LEDOs, and others focused on
understanding housing dynamics, diagnosing
issues, and creating solutions. The material will
be designed to supplement or even stand in for
the IMPO as an educational resource for member
communities and other regional stakeholders.
Engagement for the study took place throughout
the entire process in the form of stakeholder
conversations, through the Steering Committee, and
through two open houses and a speaker event.
Six different Steering Committee Meetings took place,
during which participants provided feedback and
direction of the Housing Study process. Participants
on the Steering Committee included membership
staff, for-profit housing developers, non-profit
housing developers, advocacy groups, and trade
association representatives.
Image: Steering Committee Meeting and Presentation
Stakeholder conversations were scheduled
with a variety or organizations serving various
groups and purposes, including: non-profit
developers, funders, and local CDCs (community
development corporations) involved in housing;
for-profit developers for both single-family and
multifamily; economic development professionals;
housing advocates; transportation professionals;
organizations representing the immigrant community,
seniors, people with disabilities, and the Black
community; and community center representatives.
Three meetings were set for municipal staff
representing a significant portion of the IMPO’s
membership. One at the beginning of the process to
record thoughts, concerns and other observations on
housing; one at the halfway point to provide a check-
in regarding progress, and one at the conclusion of
the study.
Engagement with the broader public was conducted
via two different open houses, and an IMPO Speaker
Event that focused on housing. During the speaker
event economist Ali Wolf offered a big picture
perspective on housing in the U.S., as well as insight
into how the housing market has evolved and what we
can learn by looking at peer cities across the nation.
Image : Flyer from the IMPO Housing Speaker and Open
House
Goals of the Study
These statements are informed by the process’s
extensive stakeholder engagement, numerous stages
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 11
of research and analysis, and steering committee
feedback. The Vision Statement and Goals of the
study inform the housing toolkit and the IMPO’s work
moving forward in housing.
Vision statement:
The Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organization
(IMPO) Central Indiana Housing Study seeks to foster
communication and support the development of a
more equitable, accessible, attainable, and connected
housing supply for current and future residents of the
Central Indiana region.
Goals:
1. Establish a shared understanding of the history
and current state of housing in Central Indiana.
2. Introduce a regional housing strategy that
connects communities and promotes equity.
3. Provide context and guidance for the public and
government leaders to inform public decision-
making on housing issues and policy.
4. Support collaboration and policy change at the
local and regional levels in promoting the vision.
5. Support the creation of the full continuum of
housing types and attainability across the region.
12
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY | INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
12
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY | INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
LOCAL HOUSING
PLAN AND
POLICY REVIEW
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 13
This Local Housing Plan and Policy Review catalogs
the housing-related analysis, planning, and policy
work that has been done in the Central Indiana
region in recent years. This review provides important
context for the Regional Housing Study and can serve
as a reference to potential resources and partnership
opportunities around the region that can help the
IMPO and others build ongoing momentum toward
achieving this study’s goals after the report is complete
and implementation has begun.
The Local Housing Plan and Policy Review covers the
following:
• Regional planning reports:
• Central Indiana Comprehensive Economic
Development Strategy (CEDS) - IMPO, 2022
• Housing Resource Guide – Indiana Association
of Realtors, Accelerate Indiana Municipalities
(AIM), 2022
• Indiana Metropolitan Area Housing
Affordability Report – Common Sense
Institute, 2023
• Housing Task Force – Indiana General
Assembly, 2022
• A Deep Dive into Affordable Rental Housing -
SAVI, 2022
• Community Preference Survey – MIBOR
REALTOR Association, IMPO, 2018 & 2022
• The State of Fair Housing in Indiana Report –
Fair Housing Center of Central Indiana, 2022
• Local housing studies:
• Housing Needs Analysis and Strategy – City of
Fishers, 2022
• Housing Study – Town of Plainfield, 2019
• Housing for All – Noblesville Housing Authority,
Hamilton Area Neighborhood Development
(HAND), Westfield Washington Township,
2023
• Neighborhood Investment Strategy – City of
Indianapolis, 2017
• Gateway Area Study – Town of Zionsville, 2021
• Boone Housing Study & Utility Needs Analysis,
anticipated publication 2024
• Architectural design standards – City of
Greenfield, 2022
• Local comprehensive plans overview
• Recent State Legislation
Overview
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 14
CENTRAL INDIANA COMPREHENSIVE
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY
(CEDS) | IMPO – 2022
The CEDS plan was developed to guide the region’s
economic development activities and priorities over
the next 5 years. The plan includes a wide sweep of
perspectives, goals, and strategies reflecting the
region’s myriad opportunities and challenges as well
as its broad network of stakeholders and resources
positioned to support.
Housing is identified as an important component of
the CEDS “Place” goal: Establish an attractive and
welcoming environment for residents and tourists
through a holistic approach to quality-of-place
initiatives that draws on cross-sector partnerships.
The plan includes the following strategies related to
housing policy:
• 3.3. Expand and preserve a full range of housing
options (owner and rental), including attainable
workforce housing and transit-oriented
development (TOD).
• 3.3.1. Leverage the American Rescue Plan Act
and other near-term funding sources to invest
in attainable housing and diversify the housing
stock.
• Share lessons learned and initiatives across
the region regarding local plans to increase
housing, including multifamily categories.
• Preserve and maintain existing affordable
housing by increasing access to home
improvement grants and weatherization
programs.
• 3.3.2. Implement area plans for the IMPO’s
Regional Activity Centers to concentrate future
housing growth in appropriate areas.
• Ensure new housing developments have
adequate connectivity to job centers through
shared mobility systems and nonmotorized
routes.
• 3.3.3. Explore zoning policy changes to reduce
barriers to housing development.
• 3.3.4. Identify municipal/county-controlled land
in urban areas for residential housing units as well
as in-fill opportunities, especially in downtown
Indianapolis.
• 3.3.5. Advance community land trusts as a
mechanism for long-term housing affordability
The CEDS plan includes a SWOT analysis of the
region’s economic position, including the following
housing-related observations:
• Strengths
• Relatively affordable (when compared to
Chicago/Coasts)
• Quality of life
• Weaknesses
• Aging population
• Long commute averages
• Lack of multifamily housing
• Stagnant growth in parts of the region
• Opportunities
• Remote workers and talent attraction
• Urban infill development
• Transit-oriented development
• Inclusive and equitable growth initiatives
• Rural and suburban development
• Threats
• Rising housing costs
• Exclusionary zoning and development
practices
• Low-wage jobs
• Racism and racial inequality
Regional Planning Reports
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 15
HOUSING RESOURCE GUIDE
INDIANA ASSOCIATION OR REALTORS |
ACCELERATE INDIANA MUNICIPALITIES
(AIM) - 2022
This report inventories a range of incentives, financing
resources, and state and federal programs available
to help municipalities and their economic development
partners expand access to housing and anticipate
demand.
The guide categorizes these resources as follows,
including detailed descriptions of each program or
resource:
Achieving homeownership
• First-time homebuyer assistance programs
• IHCDA First Place Program (FP)
• IHCDA Next Home Program (NH)
• Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC)
• Homeowner financial literacy program
• Preferred banking relationships through CRA
partnerships
• INHP home value guarantee
• IHCDA Individual Development Accounts (IDA)
• Homeownership Financial Literacy Council
(HOFLC)
• Homeowner Repair Assistance
• Down Payment Assistance
• Federal & state tax credits for homeowners
• Affordable and Workforce Housing Credit
• Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credits
• Over 65 Property Tax Deduction
• Federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit
• Tax Abatements
Fair Housing Act
• Fair Housing Advocates and Resources
• HUD and the Indiana Civil Rights Commission
• Types of Complaints Investigated by FHEO
Promoting Affordable Housing
• Planning and zoning
• The Plan Commission
• The Comprehensive Plan
• The Zoning Ordinance
• The Board of Zoning Appeals
• Tools Available at the Local Level
Tax Increment Financing (TIF)
• Housing TIF Allocation Areas and Single-
Family Residential Housing TIF
• Land Banks
• Flood Control Mechanisms
• Working With State Agencies
• Indiana Finance Agency (IFA)
• Indiana Housing and Community Development
Authority (IHCDA)
• Indiana Office of Community and Rural Affairs
(OCRA)
• Indiana Economic Development Commission
(IEDC)
• Indiana Department of Natural Resources
(DNR)
• Indiana Department of Environmental
Management (IDEM)
Specific Federal and State Programs for Communities
• Brownfield Remediation Funding
• HOME/CDBG (Homeowner Repair Assistance)
• The Neighborhood Assistance Program (NAP)
• READI
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 16
INDIANA METROPOLITAN AREA HOUSING
AFFORDABILITY REPORT | COMMON
SENSE INSTITUTE – 2023
This report analyzes housing affordability trends over
the past two decades and identifies housing gap/
surplus levels for each of the region’s counties.
The study also tracks the region’s “Homebuyer Misery
Index,” a metric developed by the Institute to reflect
the impact of prices and interest rates on homebuying
affordability.
Findings indicate a significant overall housing deficit
with substantially varying degrees of construction
activity across the region’s counties that suggest
shortages may worsen in at least some areas.
Additionally, rising costs are outstripping rising
incomes, exacerbating affordability gaps.
Key findings included in this report:
• The housing deficit in 2022 is in the range of
18,852 to 61,238. To meet population growth
by 2028 and close the housing deficit, between
66,000 and 115,000 housing units will need to be
built.
• Due to elevated prices and rising interest rates,
the affordability of purchasing a home in the
Indianapolis metro area is near its lowest point in
more than 15 years.
• Marion and Madison Counties have experienced
the largest decreases in affordability over the last
8 years: 88% and 86% respectively.
• In Madison County, 92% of permits issued
between 2012 and 2022 were for single-family
housing units.
• Marion County is running the largest deficit of
housing unit permits.
• Hamilton County has the largest surplus of
housing unit permits.
• Household incomes have not kept pace with rising
housing costs.
• Between 11,050 and 19,301 permits are needed
annually through 2028 to close the housing supply
deficit in the Indianapolis MSA (Metropolitan
Statistical Area) and meet the demands of future
population growth.
• Permits in the Indianapolis metro area are
increasingly shifting away from single-family
homes to multi-family structures.
• Homebuilder confidence has declined by 65%
since a recent high in November 2020.
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 17
HOUSING TASK FORCE | INDIANA
GENERAL ASSEMBLY – 2022
The Housing Task Force was created to study housing
affordability shortages for low- and middle-income
households; state laws that impact local housing
regulation; examples of other states and places
addressing housing shortages through land use and
zoning regulations; and possible measures to increase
housing options in Indiana. The Task Force also
assessed issues of discrimination in housing appraisals.
The Task Force met three times during its tenure
before releasing its findings and recommendations,
which address topics including:
• State funding for housing infrastructure
• Residential TIF
• Brownfields
• Tax incentives
• Financial literacy
• Appraisal discrimination
• Tax sale reform
• READI program
• Housing stability
• Local zoning
• State and local permitting and inspections
• Statewide building codes
• Manufactured and modular housing
• Appraisal gaps
• Taxing housing
• Substandard housing
THE STATE OF FAIR HOUSING IN INDIANA
REPORT | FAIR HOUSING CENTER OF
CENTRAL INDIANA – 2021-23
The Fair Housing Center regularly conducts studies
and reviews of lending and landlord practices in the
region, often with a focus in Marion County.
The State of Fair Housing in Indiana Report includes
the following volumes:
• Mortgage Lending in Marion County 2018-
2020. This volume reviews trends in lending and
homeownership, with a focus on racial disparities
in mortgages originations.
• At What Cost? Rents, Burdens, Evictions, and
Profits in Marion County. This volume documents
the escalating housing burden on low-income
renter households, especially renters of color,
families with children, and female-headed
households.
• Our Changing Neighborhoods: the Impact of
Investors, Foreclosures, and Mortgage Lending.
This volume covers changes in homeownership
across Marion County’s neighborhoods, including
issues of gentrification and displacement; trends
in lending and foreclosures; and the increased
presence of investor-ownership of single-family
homes.
• Who Owns Indy’s Houses: A Review of the
Largest Single-Family Home Investors. This
volume examines the scope and impact of a
growing trend of investors purchasing and
managing single-family houses in Marion
County.
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 18
A DEEP DIVE INTO AFFORDABLE RENTAL
HOUSING | SAVI – 2022
The Indianapolis region contains 31,051 subsidized
housing units which are most commonly supported by
the following programs:
• Low-Income Housing Tax Credits
• Low-cost mortgages to private multifamily
property owners from the Federal Housing
Administration
• Project-based Section 8 vouchers
In addition to subsidized units, the market includes
“organic affordable housing” [also known as naturally
occurring affordable housing].
Focused on rental housing, the report defines housing
affordability as a household’s rent requiring 30% or less
of their total income. The study focuses on households
that fall into HUD’s low income tiers: low income
(50-80% AMI), very low income (30-50% AMI), and
extremely low income (below 30% AMI). In calculating
what rents would be affordable for a given household,
the analysis also considers the size of the household,
presence of children, and other characteristics that
might determine how many bedrooms they would
require.
By comparing the number of households at different
income levels with the number of units that would be
affordable to each, the report identifies a substantial
housing deficit at the extremely low income level but
surpluses at the low income and very low income levels.
Because of the shortage at the extremely low income
level, many of those households are forced to rent
units above their affordability threshold, effectively
displacing units affordable to households at the very
low income level. At the same time, half of units that
would be affordable to very low income households
are occupied by households at the low income level or
above, further displacing supply for very low income
households.
The study concludes with the recommendation that
more housing supply across the income spectrum is
the best way to alleviate gaps at any one income level.
“... this illustrates a universal
concept: Increased housing supply,
both affordable and market
rate, can alleviate pressure on
low-income households to rent
unaffordable homes. When
more supply is created for
households earning less than
$20,000, there will be more
units available for households in
the $20,000-$30,000 range.
More affordable supply helps
low-income households shift
... to more affordable units.
Similarly, when more supply
is created for households
earning$30,000-$60,000 ...
more affordable units are available
to very low-income households.”
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 19
COMMUNITY PREFERENCE SURVEY |
MIBOR & IMPO – 2018 REPORT AND 2022
UPDATE
On behalf of MIBOR and IMPO, consumer research
firm American Strategies conducted phone interviews
with over 1,500 respondents in both 2018 and 2022
to develop a profile of housing preferences across
the region and gauge change in sentiment across the
intervening 5 years.
This survey includes findings very relevant to the
Central Indiana Housing Study and its assessment of
changes in market preferences and sentiments which
drive current and future demand. The findings have
also been cited in several other local and regional
housing studies and reports in recent years.
During the 2010s decade, residents’ sentiments
shifted from prioritizing the qualities of the house to
the qualities of the neighborhood as most important in
making homebuying or renting decisions.
Younger generations were more
likely to prefer conventional
suburban environments, but
a substantial portion of each
generation preferred smaller lots
in walkable neighborhoods, likely
at higher rates than exist within the
region.
The survey asked respondents to
describe the type of neighborhood
they live in and then, a few questions
later, the type of neighborhood
they would prefer. In some cases,
response rates generally aligned
between actual and preferred
residential contexts. Cases where
responses mismatched include:
• More people preferred a
small town or rural area than
currently live in such a place
(39% vs. 22%)
• More people lived in a
suburban neighborhood with houses only than
prefer such a place (27% vs. 12%)
• The most common preference was a mixed-use
suburban neighborhood (28%) compared to the
most common living situation being a suburban
neighborhood with houses only (27%).
• Fewer people preferred living in a residential
neighborhood in a city than actually live in such a
place (10% vs. 16%).
• Most respondents indicated a preference for
single family units but, between 2018 and 2022,
the distribution shifted to include a significantly
higher share of attached and townhouse style
units within the single family category.
• 51% of respondents would rather live in a mixed-
use neighborhood, 3 percentage points more
than would prefer an auto-oriented environment
and likely many more people than such housing
options exist to accommodate.
• 10% of respondents reported neither renting or
owning their home, but rather living with family.
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 20
HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS & STRATEGY |
CITY OF FISHERS - 2022
As stated in this recent study’s introduction, the “goals
of this Housing Study are to provide City decision
makers, stakeholders, developers, and community
members with comprehensive and meaningful data
to establish a baseline of existing housing stock for
current and future residential needs in Fishers.”
The report details Fishers’ demographic and
employment existing conditions and emerging trends
to place housing needs in the context of the community’s
expected growth and change in the future.
Referenced data includes detailed inventories of
recently built market rate rental properties as well
as new projects still in the development pipeline. The
study includes detailed data on single-family homes
for rent, most of which in Fisher’s case are previously
built homes that have been purchased by investment
entities. Because this is a rapidly growing trend across
the region, access to these datapoints offers a useful
reference.
The study also models the fiscal impact of a range
of hypothetical but realistic housing development
scenario, from lower density single family to a
mix of product types including denser multifamily
components. Given fiscal impacts and economic
considerations are a primary concern for communities
managing growth, these models serve as valuable
examples to learn from.
Key strategies recommended by this report:
Encourage development of a variety of senior housing
units
• Increase the supply of new lower-maintenance
housing in walkable, amenity-rich neighborhoods
with design features that are suitable for senior
living.
• Institute sensible building and zoning
regulations for accessory dwelling units for
households interested in intergenerational living
arrangements.
• Offer technical and financial assistance for senior
home modifications for households interested in
aging-in-place.
Encourage development of housing types to attract
and retain young adults
• Work with developers and home builders to
construct “right-sized” homes at attainable
prices, both for-sale and for-rent.
• Examine and modify current zoning in areas
deemed necessary to ensure developers can
build denser residential structures such as such as
apartments, townhomes, and condominiums by
right.
• Ensure that homes located in mixed-use
environments properly integrate design features
that promote walkability and decreased
dependence on automobiles.
Maintain a high-quality rental housing stock
• Initiate a rental registration program to ensure
code compliance and proper tenant protection.
• Maintain a real-time inventory of rental homes
along with key property information.
• Evaluate the feasibility of instituting an incentive
to de-convert single-family rentals into
homeownership.
Consideration of Affordable Housing
• Collaborate with the Indiana Housing &
Community Development Authority (IHCDA),
County agencies and local private/non-profit
housing development organizations to build new
income-restricted rental units in amenity-rich
areas.
• Work with social service providers and housing
development organizations to provide homes for
senior and low-to-moderate income households
with disabilities and special needs.
Local Housing Studies and Reports
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 21
HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS & STRATEGY |
CITY OF FISHERS - 2022
Though conducted prior to the pandemic, the Plainfield
Housing Analysis and Strategies report captured
emerging market and development trends which
remain largely relevant today. The study indicated a
need to diversify the housing stock to reflect national
and local demographic changes which will shift
significant demand to housing typologies that are not
yet sufficiently prevalent in town.
The report also illustrates the benefits of a more
diverse housing supply bolstered in particular by
denser multifamily products which, according to the
analysis, deliver a higher fiscal return to the city’s tax
base than typical single family houses. Additionally,
the report suggests a more diverse housing stock
will make Plainfield more competitive in the regional
competition for higher paying jobs and employees.
Key takeawaws from this report:
Housing trends
• Housing demand is changing as household
demographics change.
• Home buyers place greater emphasis on
neighborhood amenities, development type more
than on the actual home.
• Housing diversity is lacking. semi-homogeneous
housing stock does not allow Plainfield to
compete with regional peers.
• Current development is segregated by use. A
growing market segment prefers to live in mixed-
use communities.
• Pipeline is much of the same. Housing options
need to diversify.
Housing needs and affordability
• The Town in permitting new housing in alignment
with future product type needs.
• There is likely a need to diversify both rental and
ownership options based on Regional and Town
community preference survey results.
• Location, access to amenities, and development
types will affect Plainfield’s competitiveness with
surrounding Indianapolis suburbs.
• Demand is greatest at the far ends of the housing
spectrum - lower-cost and higher-end housing.
• New lower-cost housing will likely require
subsidies to support development.
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 22
HOUSING FOR ALL: LEVERAGING
HOUSING FOR ECONOMIC WELL-BEING
NOBLESVILLE HOUSING AUTHORITY |
HAMILTON COUNTY AREA NEIGHBORHOOD
DEVELOPMENT (HAND), AND WESTFIELD
WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP - 2023
Though conducted prior to the pandemic, the
Plainfield The Housing for All study focuses on
understanding and addressing the growing challenge
of providing attainable housing in Hamilton County.
The effort includes a detailed illustration of the trends
underpinning diminishing housing affordability for
local households, explanation of why diverse housing
is important for Hamilton County’s economic stability
and resilience, and a call for strengthened efforts to
confront this challenge in Hamilton County.
The study includes a vision statement and priorities for
the initiative.
Vision statement
“We believe that housing should be attainable for
those who desire to call Hamilton County home –
during every stage of their lives. We will prioritize
diversity in product types and housing prices to uphold
the economic wellbeing of Hamilton County.
To ensure housing for all, we will...
work collaboratively with leadership to prioritize
diversity in housing product types and prices
(prioritizing households earning up to 120%AMI);
encourage and regulate for lower cost housing options
near jobs and services;
explore public-private-philanthropic partnerships
to expand resources and dollars aimed at removing
barriers to attainable housing; and
communicate the importance of attainable housing
the County’s economy today and in the future.”
Strategies
The study includes detailed illustrations of key
strategies recommended for implementation which
can serve as useful reference for other communities in
the region considering similar approaches, including:
• Public-private-philanthropic partnerships
• Community land trust
• Housing trust fund
• Land use and development strategies
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 23
NEIGHBORHOOD INVESTMENT STRATEGY
| CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS - 2017
Adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan for
Indianapolis and Marion County, the Neighborhood
Investment Strategy (NIS) provides a detailed
assessment of the socioeconomic and housing
market conditions in each of the county’s diverse
neighborhoods. Based on this assessment, the NIS
assigned a neighborhood typologies for each along
with a set of strategies tailored to reinforce its unique
strengths, address its challenges, and achieve the
community-building goals established by the overall
plan.
Neighborhood typologies include:
• Maintain competitiveness
• Proactive stabilization
• Defensive measures
• Maintenance
• Responsive interventions
• Address underlying issues
The NIS document includes a library of national best
practices and a toolbox of strategies that could
continue to be useful for this and future housing
studies, policy initiatives, and investment decisions at
local and regional levels.
GATEWAY AREA STUDY | ZIONSVILLE -
2021
The Zionsville Gateway Area encompasses an
underutilized portion of the downtown’s south end.
The study explores possible redevelopment options
for this real estate, including housing mixed with other
uses such as retail and office.
The report references Zionsville’s projected ongoing
growth and high household incomes as indicators that
multifamily housing could be successful at this location.
However, community and stakeholder input suggested
housing, if developed, should be limited in its scale and
scope.
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 24
HOUSING STUDY & UTILITY NEEDS
ANALYSIS | BOONE COUNTY – 2023
At the time of this study’s completion Boone County
was in the process of completing the Housing Study
and Utility Needs Analysis, intended to “assess the
existing housing landscape and anticipate the evolving
needs” of this “rapidly growing county.” A community
survey was conducted as part of the housing study
process. The chart below summarizes responses to the
question: “How would you prioritize the housing needs
for different groups in Boone County?”
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN STANDARDS |
CITY OF GREENFIELD - 2022
Like many communities in the region, Greenfield’s
zoning ordinance includes architectural design
standards that regulate many aspects of building
massing, materiality, façade detailing, and other built
features. The purpose of guidelines like these is to
promote a consistent level of design and construction
quality throughout the community, but often raise the
cost of housing in the process. In this assessment the
Builders Association of Greater Indianapolis (BAGI)
worked with the City of Greenfield to quantify the
impact of these requirements on housing costs and
affordability.
BAGI’s assessment estimated the design standards of
Greenfield add between $27-35k to a typical home’s
construction cost. A home that is $35k more expensive
than the baseline requires between $8-10k additional
annual household income to comfortably afford,
affecting Greenfield’s affordability by a meaningful
degree.
For 1- and 2-family houses, Greenfield’s ordinance
stipulates specific requirements and restrictions
pertaining to design features such as:
• Roofs and overhangs
• Windows
• Attached garages
• Accessory structures
• Front façade material
• Landscape elements
• Detail features such as balconies, dormer
windows, coach lights, gables, etc.
The ordinance also regulates multifamily design,
including features such as:
• Façade materials
• Façade plane modulation
• Architectural detailing
• Windows
• Façade color variation
• Overall site and building layout
• Garages, parking, and access features
Co
l
l
e
g
e
st
u
d
e
n
t
s
Yo
u
n
g
pr
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
s
Fa
m
i
l
i
e
s
w
/
sc
h
o
o
l
k
i
d
s
Lo
w
-
in
c
o
m
e
Se
n
i
o
r
s
(6
5
+
)
Mi
d
d
l
e
-
in
c
o
m
e
Hi
g
h
-
in
c
o
m
e
Pe
r
s
o
n
s
/
w
/
di
s
a
b
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Ve
t
e
r
a
n
s
Ho
m
e
l
e
s
s
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 25
The IMPO conducted a review of comprehensive
plans in place across the region to compare strategies
and goals between communities and identify shared
priorities this housing study could expand upon. The
following is a summary of that analysis.
Key findings:
The topics, ranked from most to least mentioned, [the
number of comprehensive plans mentioning the topic
are in brackets] are:
• [27] Diverse housing
• [16] Aging population (includes mentions of aging
in place, downsizing, senior housing)
• [14] Mixed-use and walkable areas (note:
these had to mentioned together, some plans
mentioned walkability but in the context of having
sidewalks in housing only suburbs)
• [10] Infill development
• [9] Rehab for deteriorating homes
• [8] Affordable housing
• [6] Increase density
• [3] Green housing
As can be clearly seen “diverse housing” is an
overwhelmingly popular topic, with 27 of the 30 plans
incorporating it. Mentions of diverse housing was
frequently paired with discussions of providing options
for young professionals as well as for the aging Baby
Boomer population (which 16 plans mentioned).
Incorporating mixed-use and walkable areas was
third, however it was often stated as only being
appropriate in very small, specific, areas such as the
historic downtown. Similarly increasing density was
typically mentioned within historic downtown districts,
though a few plans noted how increasing density
overall would help increase the tax base and provide
services.
One important caveat in reviewing the the
comprehensive plans is their age. The oldest plan
included is 24 years old, and the average age is 10.4
(median age is 10.5). Many of the comprehensive
plans were written before, during, or in the immediate
aftermath of the Great Recession – in the decade plus
since then the economy and community priorities have
changed.
Local Comprehensive Plans Overview
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 26
SB 46 & HB 1499 | “PROPERTY TAX CAP
FOR HOMEOWNERS OLDER THAN 65” |
STATUS: PASSED IN 2023
Overview
Establishes the ability for counties to cap property tax
liability and annual increases for homeowners older
than 65.
Official text
Authorizes a county fiscal body to adopt an ordinance
to provide a credit against property tax liability for
qualified individuals. Defines a “qualified individual”
for purposes of the credit. Provides that the ordinance
may designate: (1) all of the territory of the county; or
(2) one or more specific geographic territories within
the county; as a neighborhood enhancement district
in which qualified individuals may apply for the credit.
Provides that the amount of the credit in a particular
year is equal to the amount by which an individual’s
property tax liability increases by more than the
percentage of increase specified by the county fiscal
body from the prior year.
Makes certain changes to the qualification
requirements for the: (1) deduction for individuals who
are at least 65 years of age; and (2) additional credit
for certain homesteads. Increases the amount of the
supplemental homestead deduction for property
taxes first due and payable in 2024 and 2025.
Recent State Legislation
Key Takeaway:
Homeowners over the age of 65 can now be
shielded from rapidly increasing property taxes,
allowing counties to cap their tax liability in a
given year and mitigate how much it increases
year-over-year.
SB 339 | “ATTAINABLE HOME OWNERSHIP
TAX CREDIT” | STATUS: PASSED IN 2023
Overview
Creates a tax credit for contributions to affordable
housing organizations with the goal of expanding
private investment in affordable housing development.
Official text
Establishes a tax credit (credit) for a contribution to
an affordable housing organization (organization).
Requires the Indiana economic development
corporation to approve each organization applicant
as an organization for which a taxpayer is eligible to
claim a credit for a contribution. Provides that the
amount of the credit is equal to 50% of the amount of
the contribution that is not more than $20,000 made
to the organization. Provides that the credit may be
carried forward for five years following the unused
credit year. Provides (subject to certain conditions)
that the total amount of tax credits awarded may not
exceed $100,000 in each state fiscal year. Requires
the department of state revenue (department) to post
certain information about the credit on a website used
by the department to provide information to the public.
Allows the department to adopt rules to implement the
credit.
Key Takeaway:
Establishes a tax credit for private investments
in affordable housing development.
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 27
SB 382 | “AFFORDABLE AND WORKFORCE
HOUSING TAX CREDIT” | STATUS: PASSED
IN 2023
Overview
Creates an Indiana Low-Income Housing Tax Credit
(LIHTC) fund available to recipients of federal 4%
LIHTC awards. The state fund is capped at $30 million
annually and the program extends until June 30, 2027
unless renewed.
Official text
(9) “State tax credit period” for a qualified project
means the period of five (5) taxable years beginning
with the taxable year in which any amount of the
federal tax credit for the qualified project is first
claimed.
(7) “Qualified project” means a qualified low income
building (as defined in Section 42(c) of the Internal
Revenue Code): (A) that is located in Indiana; (B) for
which a federal affordable housing tax credit was
awarded using a thirty percent (30%) present value
of the qualified basis of the building; and (C) that is
financed by tax exempt bonds that are subject
Sec. 8. (a) For each state fiscal year beginning after
June 30, 2023, and before July 1, 2028, the aggregate
amount of state tax credits awarded by the authority
under this chapter may not exceed thirty million dollars
($30,000,000).
Sec. 11. This chapter is subject to review under IC 2-5-
3.2-1 to evaluate the effectiveness of the state tax
credit one (1) year prior to its expiration under section
12 of this chapter.
Key Takeaway:
Establishes a state LIHTC fund to help finance
affordable and workforce housing development.
The program extends until 2027 unless renewed
for a longer period.
HB 1575 | “FIRE PREVENTION AND
BUILDING SAFETY COMMISSION” |
STATUS: PASSED IN 2023
Overview
In 2023 House Bill 1575 amended the membership
requirements and duties of the Fire Prevention and
Building Safety Commission which was formed in
2022. The bill added an additional member to the
commission, redefined what professions must be
represented in its membership, and precluded local
units of government from adopting stricter fire and
building safety codes.
Official text
Fire prevention and building safety commission.
Increases the size of the fire prevention and building
safety commission (commission) from 11 members to 12
members. Requires commission members to represent
certain defined interests or professions, beginning
August 1, 2023. Requires a commission member to be a
resident of Indiana, beginning August 1, 2023. Provides
that a commission member serves at the pleasure
of the governor. Increases the number of members
required for a quorum from six members to seven
members. Provides that the affirmative vote of not less
than two-thirds of the commission members present
and voting is necessary for purposes of adopting a
rule. Provides certain procedures for the review and
adoption of building codes. Provides that a local unit of
government may not adopt an ordinance concerning
construction and remodeling that: (1) conflicts with the
statute or a building code adopted by the commission;
or (2) includes more stringent or detailed requirements
than those set forth in the statute or a building code
adopted by the commission. Provides that this
prohibition does not apply to a unit’s architectural
design standards or its zoning ordinances.
Key Takeaway:
This bill establishes a commission to regulate
building safety in order to reduce development
costs. Under this law local units of government
cannot adopt fire and building safety codes
that are more stringent than those adopted by
the commission.
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 28
HB 1454 | “TAX INCREMENT FINANCING” |
STATUS: PASSED IN 2023
Overview
Removes restrictions on where and when housing
developers and builders can use tax increment
financing to divert property tax revenue from schools
and local governments to pay for infrastructure
like streets, sidewalks and sewers in new housing
developments.
Official text
Specifies information reporting requirements
regarding residential housing development programs.
Allows a redevelopment commission to expend
revenues from a tax increment financing district that
are allocated for police and fire services on both
capital expenditures and operating expenses
Key Takeaway:
This bill allows developers to use tax increment
financing (TIF) tools anywhere. A TIF allows
for future tax dollars to fund the infrastructure
supporting the development as opposed to
general funds or other taxing districts such as
schools.
HB 1005 | “RESIDENTIAL HOUSING
INFRASTRUCTURE REVOLVING FUND” |
STATUS: PASSED IN 2023
Overview
Building water pipes, sewage lines, sidewalks, and
other housing infrastructure are some of the costliest
expenses for home builders and developers. House
Bill 1005 establishes a revolving housing infrastructure
fund cities can apply to in order to receive funds to
pay for these infrastructure costs rather than having
developers fund these items. Municipalities must pay
the funds back. 70% of these funds must be used in
rural areas (municipalities with a population of less
than 50,000).
Official text
Establishes the residential housing infrastructure
assistance program (program) and residential housing
infrastructure assistance revolving fund (fund). ...
Provides that political subdivisions may apply to the
fund for loans for certain infrastructure projects related
to the development of residential housing. Provides
that money in the fund may not be used for: (1) debt
repayment; (2) maintenance and repair projects; (3)
upgrading utility poles; or (4) consulting or engineering
fees for studies, reports, designs, or analyses.
Provides that loans from the fund must be allocated
as follows: (1) 70% of the money in the fund must be
used for housing infrastructure in municipalities with a
population of less than 50,000. (2) 30% of the money
in the fund must be used for housing infrastructure in
all other political subdivisions. Requires the authority
to establish a project prioritization system for the
purpose of awarding loans from the fund and specifies
the criteria that must be included in the project
prioritization system.
Key Takeaway:
This bill establishes a revolving loan fund to
finance housing-related infrastructure. The
loan would be granted by the state, but the
funds must be repaid. 70% of these funds must
go towards municipalities with a population of
less than 50,000.
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 29
SB 148 | “ZONING AND HOUSING
MATTERS” | STATUS: PASSED IN 2021
Overview
Originally addressing mobile home parks, the bill was
amended to include unrelated language regarding
renter rights, including enabling landlords to evict
tenants at short notice for minimal cause, such as
reporting code violations.
Official text
Prohibits a unit of local government from regulating
certain aspects of a landlord-tenant relationship with
respect to privately owned real property located in the
unit unless the regulation is authorized by the general
assembly. Prohibits a landlord from taking certain
retaliatory actions in response to a tenant’s engaging
in one or more enumerated protected activities.
Prohibits a local unit from adopting or enforcing any
ordinance or regulation concerning retaliatory acts by
landlords.
Key Takeaway:
This bill, which originally applied only to mobile
home parks, was amended to include unrelated
language limiting renter’s rights.
SB 240 | “EMOTIONAL SUPPORT
ANIMALS” | STATUS: PASSED IN 2018
Overview
Provides that a dwelling that is exempt from Indiana
fair housing law is not subject to the requirements
applicable to emotional support animals. Exempt units
may include single family houses that are owner or
renter occupied as well as small condo buildings.
Official text
Emotional support animals. Provides that a dwelling
that is exempt from the Indiana fair housing law is not
subject to the requirements applicable to emotional
support animals. Defines “emotional support animal”.
Specifies who may use an emotional support animal,
who may prescribe an emotional support animal, and
when an individual may be prescribed an emotional
support animal. Provides that an individual with a
disability that is not readily apparent who submits a
request for an emotional support animal that falsely
suggests the individual has a disability that entitles the
individual to the use of an emotional support animal in
a dwelling commits a Class A infraction.
Key Takeaway:
This bill allows landlords to require written proof
from a renter’s health care provider to allow
for an emotional support animal to stay if the
renter’s disability is not apparent. It also makes
it a Class A infraction if an individual submits a
request for an emotional support animal that
falsely suggests they have a disability.
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 30
SB 558 | “LEASES AND SALES OF REAL
PROPERTY” | STATUS: PASSED IN 2017
Overview
Bans communities from passing ordinances to promote
inclusionary zoning as it relates to affordable housing
and adds language for landlord’s use regarding
occupancy limitations in rental housing.
Official text
Amends the statute concerning landlord and tenant
relations to provide that a unit may not regulate rental
rates for privately owned real property, through a
zoning ordinance or otherwise, unless the regulation is
authorized by an act of the general assembly. (Current
law provides that regulation of rental rates for such
property must be authorized by an act of the general
assembly.) ... Provides that a county or municipality
may not adopt or enforce any land use or planning
ordinance or regulation that has the effect of: (1)
controlling rental or purchase price; or (2) requiring
real property to be reserved for lease or sale to certain
owners. Provides that a county or municipality may
not require the owner of privately owned real property
to agree to: (1) any requirement that would have the
effect of controlling rental or purchase price; or (2) the
payment of a fee, in lieu of a requirement that would
have the effect of controlling rental or purchase price,
as a prerequisite to consideration or approval of: (A)
certain permits; or (B) any primary, secondary, or
revised plats. Provides that a county or municipality
retains the right to: (1) manage and control the
development of a commercial or residential property
in which the county or municipality has an ownership
interest; and (2) enact, enforce, or maintain any
general land use or zoning regulation that does not
have the effect of: (A) controlling rental or purchase
price; or (B) requiring real property to be reserved for
sale or lease to certain owners.
Key Takeaway:
This bill bans communities from passing
ordinances to promote inclusionary zoning
where a certain percentage of all new units
must be affordable for a given income.
HB 1300 | “ORDINANCES RELATED TO
BUILDING AND HOUSING LAWS” | STATUS:
PASSED IN 2015
Overview
Prohibits a county, municipality, or township from
adopting an ordinance that requires or would have
the effect of requiring a landlord to participate in: (1)
a Section 8 program of the federal Housing Act of
1937; or (2) a similar program concerning housing. Also
includes non-fair housing issues.
Official text
Ordinances related to building and housing laws.
Specifies that an ordinance or other regulation
adopted by a political subdivision that qualifies as a
fire safety law or a building law: (1) must be submitted
to the fire prevention and building safety commission
(commission) for review within 30 days of adoption
by the political subdivision; and (2) is not effective until
the ordinance or regulation: (A) is approved by the
commission; or (B) is approved automatically if the
commission does not approve or deny the ordinance
or regulation within four commission meetings.
Requires the commission to specify the basis for the
commission’s denial of a local ordinance or regulation.
Provides that a state agency or political subdivision
may not require a person or entity to obtain or
maintain, or both, a license to install or maintain a
low voltage thermostat of 50 volts or less. Establishes
procedures for the commission’s program for review of
adopted ordinances and other regulations. Prohibits a
county, municipality, or township from adopting an
ordinance that requires or would have the effect of
requiring a landlord to participate in: (1) a Section 8
program of the federal Housing Act of 1937; or (2) a
similar program concerning housing.
Key Takeaway:
This bill prohibits any community from adopting
legislation that would require a landlord to
participate in the Section 8 housing program.
The Section 8 program enables the lowest
income households to rent decent, safe housing
in the private housing market by providing
rental assistance.
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 31
HB 1403 | “REGULATION OF RESIDENTIAL
RENTAL PROPERTY” | STATUS: PASSED IN
2014
Overview
Landlords may pass certain fees assessed by the
municipality on to rental tenants. These may include
inspection fees, registration fees, permit fees, nuisance
violation penalties, etc
Official text
Provides that the owner of a rental unit assessed any
fee by a political subdivision pertaining to the rental
unit may: (1) notify the tenants of the rental unit of the
assessment of the fee; and (2) require the tenants of the
rental unit to reimburse the owner for the payment of
the fee. (Current law refers to “inspection, registration,
or other fee”.) Requires fees regarding rental units and
rental communities to be deposited in a dedicated
fund to for reimbursement of costs actually incurred
by the political subdivision relating to the imposition
and amount of the fee. Restricts the circumstances
and conditions in which a political subdivision may
require a rental unit’s owner or landlord to obtain a
permit. Allows an owner of a rental unit to obtain an
exemption from a political subdivision’s inspection and
inspection fee requirements if the rental unit satisfies
certain requirements. Allows a political subdivision to
impose a penalty for an act constituting a nuisance or
ordinance violation. Allows a successful county, city, or
town or a successful defendant to recover attorney’s
fees incurred in a nuisance action. Provides that a
political subdivision may assess an annual registration
fee. Repeals superseded statutes relating to local
regulation of residential landlord and tenant relations.
Key Takeaway:
This bill allows landlords to force tenants to pay
certain assessed fees such as administrative fees
and nuisance penalties on the property they
are renting. If the tenant attempts to take legal
action and is not successful, they are responsible
for paying all legal bills.
31
32
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY | INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
32
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY | INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
SOCIOECONOMIC
PROFILE OF THE
REGION
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 33
Overview
This report compiles an analysis of socioeconomic
characteristics to provide the Central Indiana Housing
Study with context on how people live and work across
the region. Analysis draws from a variety of data
sources, including the American Community Survey,
Internal Revenue Service, ESRI, Census on the Map,
and several other agencies and providers.
The document is organized into three sections focused
on different perspectives of the region’s population
characteristics and migration patterns:
• Household characteristics, such as
demographics and economic indicators that
relate to a household’s ability to access and
maintain housing that meets their needs and
aligns with their preferences.
• Community vulnerabilities, including indicators
that gauge a household’s stability relative to
economic and environmental risk factors that
could limit access to adequate housing and
impact housing resilience in the face of crises.
• Jobs and migration, such as the distribution
of job concentrations across the region and
migration patterns that reflect housing challenges
and opportunities as households resettle between
counties within the Metropolitan Planning Area
(MPA) region.
Note on data sources: While the maps displayed of the
region show the different values for a given Census
tract the regionwide estimates are based on the larger
Indianapolis Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA),
and as such include data from Putnam, Brown, and
Madison Counties. These counties represent roughly
9% of the metro population indicating their impact on
averages across the region should be minimal.
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 34
Of this report’s findings, the following are particularly
reflective of the region’s socioeconomic composition
and instructive for shaping the broader project’s policy
and related recommendations.
1. The region exhibits significant income disparities
within and between counties and municipalities.
The most pronounced difference occurs between
central Marion County and much higher-income
Carmel and its adjacent communities. Most of the
region’s households living below poverty level are
concentrated in central Marion County. Income
disparities are less pronounced in other parts
of the region, though some parts of Hendricks,
Johnson, and Hancock Counties are substantially
higher-income than others.
2. The region is also fragmented in terms of other
demographic characteristics such as race and
age. Central Marion County contains much higher
concentrations of Hispanics and people of color
than the rest of the region, though there are other
areas of moderate racial diversity elsewhere
too. Median ages are substantially higher in the
surrounding counties than within Marion County,
with the oldest populations in the most rural
peripheral areas.
3. Households are much more likely to move
within the core (Marion County) or within the
surrounding counties than between the core and
the surroundings. Among households who have
moved within the past year, those moving from a
home within Marion County tended to stay within
the county. Households moving from a home
within surrounding counties similarly resettled
outside Marion County.
4. Measured on a region-wide basis, higher-
income, larger households are concentrating
in the suburbs while lower-income, smaller
households are concentrating in Marion
County. More detailed migration data suggests
populations are trending toward higher levels of
socioeconomic homogeneity as higher-income
households migrate into higher-cost communities
and lower-income households migrate into lower-
cost communities, especially Marion County.
Additionally, larger households (i.e. families
with children) are leaving Marion County for the
surrounding communities while the households
moving in are comparatively smaller.
5. Households in central Marion County are much
more vulnerable to housing destabilization
than elsewhere in the region. Indicators such
as unemployment and lack of access to health
insurance, home internet, and personal vehicles
measure highest in central Indianapolis. However,
one indicator – rates of cost burdened renters
– was much more widespread throughout the
region.
Key Findings
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 35
The following section details a range of socioeconomic
characteristics to illustrate how different measures
of household income, demographics, and related
features are distributed across the region. Each
has a meaningful relationship to housing need and
attainability, though some more directly than others.
However, it is important to note the need to provide
a variety of housing that’s accessible to a range of
different people. In addition to improving housing
access diversity in housing is also important in
cultivating housing stock resilience as people move
through different stages of life and economic realities
fluctuate.
Characteristics include:
• Household income, indicating ability to pay for
housing.
• Poverty rate, signaling where housing costs
may present a burden which might also be
compounded by other risk factors related to
poverty status.
• Median age, informing, for example, the
appropriate balance of housing unit sizes in terms
of bedrooms.
• Percentage of population over 65, illustrating
where seniors are more prevalent and thus
housing that meets and anticipates their needs
may be a higher priority.
• Percentage of population under 18, indicating
where families with children reside, typically
requiring larger housing units.
• School district enrollment, suggesting how many
school age children live in the community overall
and relative sizes of school system capacities.
• Student to teacher ratio, signaling school system
capacity and ability to accommodate more
families within existing facilities.
• Percentage of population foreign born,
suggesting areas where population change might
be tied to immigrants settling locally.
• Racial and ethnic diversity, indicating areas
that are more multicultural or otherwise
predominantly non-white.
Household Characteristics
Overview
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 36
HOUSEHOLD INCOME
Median household incomes are unevenly distributed
across the region, with the highest concentrations of
wealth in and adjacent to southern Hamilton County
and lowest incomes across most of Marion County.
With some exceptions, incomes are somewhat higher
in more rural areas of surrounding counties than their
more suburban and urban centers.
The median household income for the Indianapolis
Metro is $73,571 (2022 ACS 5-year).
POVERTY
Households in poverty are most prevalent within the
central areas of Marion County. Poverty rates are less
concentrated but still significant in some of the region’s
more rural areas.
The poverty rate for the Indianapolis Metro is 11.1%
(2021 ACS 5-year).
MEDIAN AGE
The surrounding counties’ residents are generally
older than those in the core. Within each county, the
more populous central towns are generally younger
than the more rural periphery.
The median age for the Indianapolis Metro is 36.6
(2021 ACS 5-year).
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 37
OVER 65 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION
The region’s senior population is more concentrated in
rural areas than suburban or urban communities.
13.7% of the Indianapolis Metro population is 65 or
older (2021 ACS 5-year).
UNDER 18 POPULATION
The region’s youth population is more concentrated
within the core but also somewhat unevenly distributed
across surrounding suburban and rural areas.
24.7% of the Indianapolis Metro population is under
18 (2021 ACS 5-year).
SCHOOL DISTRICT ENROLLMENT
School enrollment generally reflects relative population
size around the region, with more populous Marion
and Hamilton Counties enrolling many more students
than other surrounding counties.
Metro-wide summary data not available.
STUDENT TO TEACHER RATIO
The school districts in the less populous counties
tend to have more crowded classrooms, suggesting
new school construction will be needed to support
ongoing growth. Within Marion County, classrooms
are much less crowded, in some cases possibly
approaching levels that could lead to school closures
or consolidations.
This analysis does not include charter schools. Metro-
wide summary data not available.
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 38
FOREIGN BORN RESIDENTS
The region’s foreign-born residents are primarily
concentrated within Marion County and immediately
adjacent communities to the north, south, and west.
7.3% of the Indianapolis Metro population is foreign
born. (2021 ACS 5-year).
RACIAL AND ETHNIC DIVERSITY
Marion County is substantially more racially and
ethnically diverse than the surrounding counties.
Within Marion County, people of color and Hispanic
origin are highly concentrated across an east/west
band north of downtown.
29.2% of the Indianapolis Metro population is
BIPOC. (2021 ACS 5-year).
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 39
Community Vulnerabilities
Overview
The following section focuses on socioeconomic
characteristics that indicate community vulnerabilities
which might impact household and neighborhood
housing stability as well as resiliency to hardships such
as macroeconomic downturns.
Characteristics include:
• Health insurance coverage, indicating financial
resiliency in the event of a health-related crisis
that could destabilize a household’s housing
status.
• Child poverty, suggesting limited resources
to adequately house families and support
dependents as they age and form their own
households.
• Vehicle ownership, signaling reduced housing
choices based on availability of alternative
transportation.
• Access to home internet, suggesting constraints
on capacity to connect to educational
employment resources that can drive housing
attainability.
• Cost burdened homeowners and renters,
indicating households that are spending more
than they can comfortably afford on housing.
• Unemployment, signaling households facing
financial challenges that might destabilize their
housing status.
• Center for Disease Control Vulnerability
Index, a measure of the community’s economic
resilience in response to environmental,
economic, and other macro-level hardships.
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 40
HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE
Lack of health insurance is most common within
pockets of Marion County as well as across some more
rural areas of surrounding counties.
While not conventionally associated with housing,
health insurance coverage represents a major
stabilizing force in peoples’ lives, becoming highly
consequential during and after a health crises when
costs and debt can dramatically impact uninsured
households, threatening their ability to afford housing.
7.6% of the Indianapolis Metro population is uninsured
(2021 ACS 5-year).
CHILD POVERTY
Child poverty is most concentrated in central
neighborhoods of Marion County but also somewhat
prevalent in rural areas across the region.
Child poverty is associated with diminished education
and health outcomes, representing a long-term
obstacle to household stability and upward mobility
for the populations experiencing it.
15.0% of children in the Indianapolis Metro are below
the poverty line. (2021 ACS 5-year)
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 41
VEHICLE OWNERSHIP
Though otherwise completely widespread, vehicle
ownership is reduced within the core of Marion County
and a few pockets of the surrounding counties.
Especially in more walkable, transit-served areas,
households may choose to forego vehicle ownership
without risk to their livelihood or quality of life.
However, in cases where other circumstances dictate
and transit alternatives are limited, lack of a vehicle
can limit a household’s viable housing options and
present a major impediment to accessing employment,
healthcare, and education resources.
2.0% of households in the Indianapolis Metro do not
have access to a vehicle. (2021 ACS 5-year)
ACCESS TO HOME INTERNET
Internet access is lowest in the region’s most rural
areas as well as the less affluent core neighborhoods
of Marion County.
While most households likely have some internet
connectivity via cell phone, lack of home internet access
can impede access to education and employment
opportunities, especially given the post-Covid shift to
remote work and education. These disadvantages can
translate into diminished ability to afford and maintain
adequate housing.
11.8% of households in the Indianapolis Metro do not have
internet subscriptions at home. (2021 ACS 5-year)
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 42
COST-BURDENED HOMEOWNERS
Cost burden among homeowners with mortgages
is evenly distributed across the region except
concentrations of higher rates in pockets of central
Marion County and some more rural parts of
surrounding counties. Areas with more cost-burdened
residents indicates demand for more affordable
housing options.
24.0% of homeowners in the Indianapolis Metro are
cost burdened. (2021 ACS 5-year)
Note: Cost burdened households are those paying 30% or
more of their monthly household income on housing costs.
These costs include not just rent or mortgage obligations
but also taxes, insurance, utilities, and other basic housing
expenses. Some metrics in this study measure just rent or
mortgage costs and not these additional basic housing
expenses. In these cases, the cost burden threshold is set to
25% of total household income rather than 30% to account
for those other basic expenses (which would bring a 25% cost
level up to 30%).
The metric illustrated here is obtained from a Census dataset
that accounts for both the rent/mortgage costs and those
additional basic housing expenses. As such, it is appropriate
to use a 30% cost burden threshold here.
COST-BURDENED RENTERS
Cost burden among renters is much more prevalent
than among owners with rates that vary significantly
between and within counties. Areas with more cost-
burdened residents indicates demand for more
affordable housing options.
61.7% of renters in the Indianapolis Metro are cost
burdened. (2021 ACS 5-year)
Note: Cost burdened households are those paying 30% or
more of their monthly household income on housing costs.
These costs include not just rent or mortgage obligations
but also taxes, insurance, utilities, and other basic housing
expenses. Some metrics in this study measure just rent or
mortgage costs and not these additional basic housing
expenses. In these cases, the cost burden threshold is set to
25% of total household income rather than 30% to account
for those other basic expenses (which would bring a 25% cost
level up to 30%).
The metric illustrated here is obtained from a Census
dataset that accounts for both the rent/mortgage costs
and those additional basic housing expenses. As such, it is
appropriate to use a 30% cost burden threshold here.
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 43
UNEMPLOYMENT
Rates of unemployment are generally in keeping
with state and national averages (3.1% and 3.4%
respectively in January 2023) but there are several
pockets of higher unemployment within the core and
some peripheral rural areas.
Employment is typically fundamental to household
financial stability, so loss of employment might
indicate households who are at risk of losing their
current housing and might need support bridging the
gap between jobs.
Addressing contributing factors like unemployment can
indirectly improve housing stability and affordability.
The unemployment rate for the Indianapolis Metro is
2.9%.
CDC SOCIAL VULNERABILITY INDEX
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) established
the Social Vulnerability Index to highlight areas where
risk factors are particularly prevalent and, as a result,
households are less resilient to destabilizing shocks to
the community such as economic downturns, health
crises, and environmental disasters. In the wake of
such challenges, these households may be more likely
to face housing challenges during a recovery.
Metro-wide summary data not available.
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 44
Jobs and Migration
Overview
The following section explores geographic employment
distribution across the region and measures patterns
of migration, especially within and between different
parts of the region.
Analyses include:
• Job density, distinguishing the region’s
employment hubs from areas with fewer jobs.
• Total jobs, adding specificity to the job density
measure and indicating where commuting flows
to and from during the workday.
• Population growth, illustrating areas of where
growth has been more or less sustained over the
past 20 years, impacting housing demand and
construction.
• Migration relative to the core and surrounding
counties, illustrating patterns of resettlement
based on where households moved from and
to within the region, with focus on relocations
between the core and surrounding compared to
relocations within each.
• Migration between counties, indicating flows of
households moving from one county to another in
terms of quantity, average income, and average
household size.
• Regional net migration, summarizing migration
into and out of the region as a whole.
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 45
JOB DENSITY
Employment is primarily concentrated in and around
downtown Indianapolis, with secondary concentrations
focused at nodes along the northern and western
segments I-465 as well as within Greenwood.
Areas outside these employment centers are primarily
bedroom communities whose residents travel some
distance to reach their jobs. Given limited transit
service in most of these areas, most commuters travel
by car.
TOTAL JOBS
In addition to adding more geographic specificity
to the distribution of jobs within general areas
of employment concentration, this finer-grained
mapping registers minor job centers within the centers
of towns in surrounding counties. This indicates the
opportunity for at least some local residents to work
within their home community, though most likely
commute to other places for work.
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 46
POPULATION GROWTH
Rates of population growth have slowed slightly in
the previous decade compared to the 2000-2010
timeframe. However, all counties except Morgan and
Shelby continue to experience meaningful growth,
likely driven by a combination of ongoing preferences
for suburban lifestyles by many households plus
induced demand from ongoing housing construction
(i.e. families moving to where housing supply is made
available).
PEOPLE MOVING FROM THE CORE
(MARION COUNTY) ARE STAYING NEAR
THE CORE
This map focuses on people who were living in
Indianapolis at the start of 2021 and changed residence
during that year. Most of these households relocated
within Marion County but significant numbers crossed
into surrounding counties, settling in suburban
communities near but outside the Marion County
line. Smaller numbers relocated in the surrounding
counties’ more rural areas.
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 47
PEOPLE MOVING FROM OUTSIDE THE
CORE (MARION COUNTY) STAYED
OUTSIDE
This map focuses on people who were living outside
Indianapolis at the start of 2021 and changed
residence during that year. Most of these households
remained outside Marion County, settling either in a
new home within their origin community or another
part of the surrounding counties. Significant numbers
settled in the region’s more rural areas. Notably few
settled in southern Hamilton County communities such
as Carmel and Fishers despite the high concentration
of housing there.
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 48
The following diagrams illustrate flows of household
migration between counties in the region. Totals are
limited to households that moved from one of the
eight counties to another – movers within counties or
between this region and other places are not captured
in this analysis.
The purpose of this series is to document how
households are resettling within the region in terms
that reflect shifting housing demand and that might
inform changing needs in local housing supply.
The example diagrams at right are annotated to help
interpret this map-based style of tabulation.
The following maps illustrate these migration flows in
terms of three different variables, each contributing to
shifting housing market in different ways:
• Number of households, relating to overall
net gains or losses of households of different
socioeconomic profiles and housing
preferences.
• Average household income, suggesting shifts in
favor of more desirable housing in the destination
county (when incomes are higher) or potential
displacement due to rising local costs in the
originating county (when incomes are lower).
• Average household size, indicating where
families are relocating (when sizes are larger) or
where singles and couples would rather live (when
sizes are smaller).
How To Read These Charts
Migration in: the numbers represent how many
households moved into the orange highlighted county
from each of the other counties.
Migration from: the numbers represent how many
households moved out of the highlighted county and
into each of the other counties.
Note: Migration flows with fewer than 20 households were
excluded from the source data by the provider for privacy
reasons across this series of maps.
PATTERNS OF MIGRATION BETWEEN
COUNTIES
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 49
IN-MIGRATION FROM OTHER COUNTIES
IN THE REGION BY TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS
These diagrams indicate the number of households moving into the highlighted county from each of the other
counties in the region. The darker the color blue, the larger the amount of households that have migrated. Counties
with no indicated incomes contributed to fewer movers than the IRS’s minimum threshold per privacy restrictions.
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 50
IN-MIGRATION FROM OTHER COUNTIES
IN THE REGION BY AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD
INCOME
Of most interest are the counties exchanging households of markedly different incomes. Flows of lower-income
households relative to the region could suggest pricing out; flows of higher-income households could be following
lifestyle preferences.
These diagrams indicate the average income of households moving into the highlighted county from each of the other
counties in the region. The darker the color blue, the larger the amount of households that have migrated. Counties
with no indicated incomes contributed to fewer movers than the IRS’s minimum threshold per privacy restrictions.
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 51
IN-MIGRATION FROM OTHER COUNTIES
IN THE REGION BY AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD
SIZE
Flows of larger households suggest families seeking larger housing types or different school options, likely in more suburban
and rural environments. Flows of smaller households suggest singles and couples seeking smaller units. Counties with no
indicated household size contributed to fewer movers than the IRS’s minimum threshold per privacy restrictions.
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 52
OUT-MIGRATION TO OTHER COUNTIES IN
THE REGION BY TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 53
OUT-MIGRATION TO OTHER COUNTIES IN
THE REGION BY AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD
INCOME
Of most interest are the counties exchanging households of markedly different incomes. Flows of lower-income
households could suggest pricing out; flows of higher-income households could be following lifestyle preferences.
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 54
OUT-MIGRATION TO OTHER COUNTIES IN
THE REGION BY AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD
SIZE
Flows of larger households suggest families seeking larger housing types or different school options, likely in more
suburban and rural environments. Flows of smaller households suggest singles and couples seeking smaller units,
likely in more walkable environments.
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 55
REGIONAL NET MIGRATION
In addition to migration flows between Central Indiana
counties, there are significant flows into and out of
the region overall. Together, these flows comprise
measures of net migration, a potentially significant
driver of total household growth. The table below
summarizes net migration at the county and regional
levels. Every county except Marion is experiencing
growth driven by higher levels of in-migration than
out-migration.
County Total in-
migration
Total out-
migration Net migration
Boone 2,881 2,316 565
Hamilton 13,018 10,217 2,801
Hancock 3,329 2,552 777
Hendricks 7,132 5,771 1,361
Johnson 6,151 5,685 466
Marion 25,168 30,112 -4,944
Morgan 2,294 2,104 190
Shelby 1,269 1,178 91
Annual totals 61,242 59,935 1,307
Extrapolating the region’s annual net migration
of 1,307 households into the future, these flows
could add at least 13,000 households to the region’s
total 10-year growth. However, during this study,
many stakeholders and community representatives
have observed migration rates increasing due to
the region’s increasing attractiveness nationally due
to its strong job growth and comparatively low housing
costs (i.e. compared to Chicago or the nation’s coasts).
Therefore, it is reasonable to expect rates of net in-
migration to increase over the coming years. The table
below models how different degrees of year-over-
year migration rate increases could lead to dramatic
increases in total net in-migration over a 10-year
period, contributing substantially to the region’s
projected overall growth.
Potential year-over-year in-migration rate increase
Year 0%10%20%30%
1 1,307 1,307 1,307 1,307
2 1,307 1,438 1,568 1,699
3 1,307 1,581 1,882 2,209
4 1,307 1,740 2,258 2,871
5 1,307 1,914 2,710 3,733
6 1,307 2,105 3,252 4,853
7 1,307 2,315 3,903 6,309
8 1,307 2,547 4,683 8,201
9 1,307 2,802 5,620 10,662
10 1,307 3,082 6,744 13,860
Total 10-year net
in-migration 13,070 20,830 33,928 55,704
56
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY | INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
56
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY | INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
HOUSING
MARKET
CONDITION
REPORT
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 57
Overview
This report compiles analysis of housing market
conditions across the region to inform the study on the
housing currently available and how it was developed.
Analysis draws from a variety of data sources,
including the American Community Survey, Census
Building Permit Survey, CoStar, and several other
agencies and providers.
The document is organized into two primary sections:
• Development patterns, illustrating how the
region has been settled over time and where
development and redevelopment of different
forms are most prevalent currently.
• Current housing costs, indicating present rental
and purchase costs by unit characteristics such
as bedroom count, comparing costs between
different market clusters and counties, and
tracking sales activity over the past several
years.
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 58
Key Findings
Of this report’s findings, the following are particularly
reflective of what is driving the regional housing market
and instructive for shaping the broader project’s policy
and related recommendations.
1. The core and surrounding counties have very
different development histories and current
market conditions. For almost a century, most
of the region’s development has focused outside
central Indianapolis and, over time, spread
further into the surrounding suburbs. While some
parts of the core have seen relatively recent new
development, many parts of Marion County have
fewer units today than they did in the middle of
the 20th century.
2. Large-scale multifamily development activity
is increasing in the central and southern
surrounding counties. This represents an
expansion from Hamilton and Marion Counties
where the market is now more mature to high-
growth parts of Hendricks, Johnson, and Hancock
Counties.
3. Region-wide, multifamily development
represents a quickly growing share of overall
housing production. This reflects shifts in housing
market preferences from mostly single family
to a wider mix of typologies in not just the more
established core and developed Hamilton County
but throughout the region. Notably, smaller-
scale multifamily development (less than 5 units
per building) has seen significant acceleration in
recent years.
4. Single family prices continue to rise while sales
volumes decline. Many forces are at play behind
this observation, including rising interest rates,
volatile construction costs, and widespread
socioeconomic changes driven by the pandemic.
5. Purpose-built single family rental developments
are increasingly common. Initially, single family
rental units were originally built for-sale but
were being leased by small-scale investors or
assembled into rental portfolios by investment
firms. More recently, developers are building new
single family rental houses at scales previously
reserved for large for-sale homebuilders.
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 59
Development Patterns
Overview
The following section illustrates housing development
patterns across the region both in their present form
and historically since 1940.
Perspectives include:
• Housing density, indicating where more and less
intensive development has occurred.
• Housing vacancy, signaling areas of
disinvestment, displacement, or other forms of
neighborhood distress.
• Historic development by decade, illustrating
patterns of housing development and
displacement since 1940.
• Recent housing production by housing type,
indicating the mix of housing types delivered each
year since 2000.
• Permitted housing units by housing type in
2022, indicating where different development
housing types are concentrating at present.
• Single family rentals, a rapidly emerging product
type that introduces new opportunities and
challenges in communities and the market.
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 60
HOUSING DENSITY MOSTLY
CONCENTRATED IN THE CORE
Marion County contains most of the region’s denser
neighborhoods. However, there are pockets of density
throughout the region, including several centers in
Hamilton County and near rural downtowns in other
surrounding counties.
Outside these pockets of relative density, the
surrounding counties are still mostly rural or suburban
in character with low-density housing.
HOUSING VACANCY GENERALLY LOW,
WITH SOME EXCEPTIONS
The region generally exhibits a low housing vacancy
rate. However, there are clusters of higher vacancy
rates in most counties, with the most pronounced
concentrations in Marion, Hamilton, and Morgan
Counties.
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 61
MOST NET NEW HOUSING DEVELOPMENT HAS FOCUSED AROUND – BUT NOT WITHIN –
THE CORE.
Over the past 80 years, most of the region’s net new housing has been built along or outside the I-465 corridor. Most
of this growth has occurred within the Marion, Hamilton, Hendricks, and Johnson Counties.
Smaller concentrations of development have occurred in and around town centers in other surrounding counties,
with lower rates of development in more rural areas.
Broken down decade-by-decade, the region’s housing development has radiated from the core into the suburbs
since the 1940s. Only since 2010 has central Indianapolis experienced a net unit increase, a period during which
growth slowed in many other parts of the region.
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 62
CONSTRUCTION SINCE THE GREAT RECESSION HAS INCLUDED A LARGER SHARE
OF MULTIFAMILY HOUSING
Growth in younger households, rising housing and land costs, and greater interest in living close to goods and services
are some of the reasons why more development in recent years has consisted of multifamily, especially in larger
buildings with 5 or more units.
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS REMAIN CONSISTENT THROUGH RECENT
CYCLES
Dividing historical single family development patterns into increments corresponding to recent economic cycles,
the pattern of construction across the region remains relatively consistent. During each period, the highest rates of
development occurred in Hamilton, Hendricks, Johnson, and Marion Counties. Construction slowed down somewhat
during and shortly after the Great Recession but has since resumed at Pre-Recession rates in many parts of the
region.
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 63
SMALLER DEVELOPMENTS A BIGGER PART OF MULTIFAMILY CONSTRUCTION
Patterns of larger-scale multifamily development (5 or more units per building) have remained largely consistent
since pre-recession times, with areas of highest activity generally concentrated in Marion and Hamilton Counties.
Hancock County has seen the most considerable increase in larger-scale multifamily development since the 2008
Recession.
At the same time, patterns of smaller-scale multifamily development (less than 5 units per building) have seen
significant acceleration in recent years. This suggests smaller, infill projects are comprising an increasing share of the
region’s multifamily construction, especially in Marion and Hamilton Counties where the market is more mature and
cities and towns are more built-out relative to other parts of the region.
MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT (5+ UNITS / BUILDING)
MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT (<5 UNITS / BUILDING)
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 64
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
WIDESPREAD THROUGHOUT THE REGION
Isolating just 2022 permitting activity, single family
development has been consistently distributed across
most of the region, with Shelby and Morgan Counties
experiencing slower rates than other counties within
Central Indiana.
SOME DUPLEX DEVELOPMENT
THROUGHOUT THE REGION
Isolating just 2022 permitting activity, 2-family housing
development patterns show higher rates of these
typologies occurring in Hamilton, Hendricks, Marion,
and Johnson Counties though rates in general are low
across the region.
SMALLER-SCALE INFILL DEVELOPMENTS
CONCENTRATED IN HAMILTON COUNTY
Isolating just 2022 permitting activity, small multifamily
buildings (3-4 units) were significantly more prevalent
in Hamilton County, with few to none permitted in
other places within the region.
LARGER-SCALE MULTIFAMILY
DEVELOPMENT PREVALENT
THROUGHOUT CENTRAL INDIANA WITH
TWO EXCEPTIONS
Isolating just 2022 permitting activity, larger-scale
multifamily development was most prevalent in
Hamilton and Marion Counties and least so in Boone
and Morgan Counties.
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 65
SINGLE FAMILY RENTALS
Communities across the region have reported significant
increases in single family rental development activity
over recent years. Often resembling conventional
for sale master plans, these developments regularly
include over 100 units at a time. These developments
typically include centralized management, operating
like a garden apartment complex with functions such
as landscaping and building maintenance conducted
by the managing company rather than unit occupants.
Recently, rental product has comprised an increasing
share of new single family development proposals. In
some cases, rental developers have acquired un-built
single family permits originally proposed as for sale
units but which were not delivered for reasons related
to tapering demand, increased financing cost, etc.
Single family rentals offer new opportunities and
advantages, including:
• Access to a house for households not ready
or able to purchase within their community of
choice.
• Central management and maintenance
functions can support an attractive and orderly
neighborhood when diligently performed.
However, these developments raise concerns within
communities for reasons such as:
• The format is still relatively new and untested in
many places.
• The central management and maintenance might
decline in quality and diligence over time, such as
if the property changes hands and a less attentive
buyer takes over.
A single family rental community in Florida developed by AMH.
Image source: https://communities.amh.com/communities/walden-
woods
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 66
Current Housing Costs
Overview
The following section documents housing costs across
the region, including comparisons between market
clusters and counties at present and over time.
Indicators include:
• Rental rates, indicating where rents are higher
and lower by geography.
• Rental vacancy rates, illustrating where the rental
market may be tighter versus softer in different
sub-geographies across the region.
• Unit sizes, indicating ratio of smaller to larger
rental unit production over recent years.
• Single family sale prices and volumes, comparing
home prices and rates of sales between counties
and over time.
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 67
RENTAL RATES RANGE WIDELY ACROSS THE REGION
The region’s highest apartment rates are focused in Hamilton and Hendricks Counties as well as a concentration of
top-of-market units in downtown Indianapolis. Other counties and peripheral parts of Marion County exhibit lower
rental rates per square foot.
Note: The market cluster classifications utilized by this and subsequent charts are a product of CoStar, the data
source for this information. The clusters are intended to reflect adjacent areas of comparable market conditions.
RENTS ARE INCREASING THROUGHOUT THE REGION
Since 2020, rents across the region have begun increasing at a higher rate than over the previous decade. The
most pronounced increases have occurred in areas where rents already outpaced the rest of the region, such as
Downtown Indianapolis. As the majority of new multifamily development activity shifts from Hamilton and Marion
Counties to other surrounding counties, it is likely these other market clusters will see jumps in local average rents.
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 68
RENTAL VACANCY RATES ARE MUCH HIGHER IN MARION COUNTY THAN ELSEWHERE
Apartment vacancy rates are relatively low outside Marion County which occupies the top 7 spots on the list at right.
This finding would suggest higher market appetite for new apartments in surrounding counties. However, given the
highly segmented nature of today’s apartment markets, there may be certain product types that can gain traction
in market clusters with high average vacancy rates but a shortage of specialized typologies that meet local niche
demand.
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 69
SMALLER UNIT TYPES HAVE BECOME MORE PROMINENT AT THE EXPENSE OF LARGER
UNIT TYPES
Since 2018, many apartments have been built with more studios and one-bedroom units. Not surprisingly, buildings
in downtown Indianapolis and close-in neighborhoods have skewed heavily toward these smaller unit sizes. However,
even in the outer counties, there has been an important shift toward smaller unit sizes as well.
This shift has been driven by changing demographics and rapidly rising rents. The impact is that fewer larger unit
types that can accommodate families are being built. This may in turn be contributing to the increasing popularity of
built to rent subdivisions.
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 70
RENTS IN NEWER APARTMENTS ARE SIMILAR ACROSS COUNTIES. RENTS IN OLDER
APARTMENTS VARY SIGNIFICANTLY BY COUNTY
Almost universally across the region, multifamily rents in new developments are significantly higher than in
developments that are 10 years or older. Rents are much more consistent regionally among newer developments
than older.
Note: N/A designation assigned where too few – or zero – units are present to gauge a material estimate of the total.
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 71
SINGLE-FAMILY FOR-SALE PRICES ON THE RISE REGIONWIDE
Between 2020 and 2022, median sales prices have increased an average of 31% across IMPO’s counties.
SINGLE FAMILY SALES RATES DECLINING ACROSS THE REGION
The largest counties in the IMPO have experienced a significant decline in homes sales since 2020.
72
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY | INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
72
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY | INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
HOUSING
DEMAND AND
GAP ANALYSIS
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 73
Overview
This report compiles the analysis of housing and
household characteristics along with growth
projections and market preference assessments
to identify gaps in the current housing supply and
understand what additional housing will be needed to
meet expected new demand over the coming years.
The document summarizes housing gaps and
production need at the regional level. Each geography
is assessed using the following sequence of analyses:
• Current housing preferences, establishing the
choices residents would likely make if selecting
housing based on their current income, household
size, and tenure. Findings of this analysis are in
concurrence with the recent MIBOR survey of
consumer preferences.
• Current housing supply, summarizing the existing
housing stock in terms of monthly cost, bedroom
count, and tenure (rent vs own). This inventory
is based on a complete modeling of the region’s
housing at the unit-by-unit level of detail, using
parcel data, real-time web scraping, and other
public and proprietary sources.
• Current market alignment, gauging the degree
of alignment between preferences and supply.
Areas of misalignment indicate households
that, for example, pay more than they can
comfortably afford; have more bedrooms than
they need; or are otherwise not living in a unit
that best reflects their preferences and/or ability
to pay.
• Projected household growth, estimating future
change in house counts by income.
• Production need forecast, translating household
growth into new housing production need
quantities.
• Five-year production need, parsing the housing
production forecast into unit counts by cost,
bedroom count, and tenure to inform the number
and types of housing communities should plan for
to accommodate expected new demand over the
next five years.
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 74
Key Findings
This report provides a detailed review of the degree of
alignment between the region’s housing stock and its
residents’ housing preferences as well as projections of
future household growth and the new housing needed
to accommodate it. The following are key findings that
have emerged through the course of these analyses:
1. The region has more mid- and higher-cost 3 and
4+ bedroom houses than people would prefer. In
all counties and regionwide, there are considerably
more owned houses at mid- and higher-cost
levels than the current population would demand
if making their housing decisions today. As such,
it can be expected that, as households move
to their next unit, many will shift from an owned
house to either a smaller ownership unit (condo
or townhome) or a rental option, assuming their
preference is available in their community of
choice. The one exception to this pattern is houses
at the highest cost range where it seems the region
could absorb more than it has.
2. The region does not have enough smaller
ownership units. In all counties and region-
wide, there are too few ownership units (up to 2
bedrooms) compared to what the population
would prefer. Small ownership units often, though
not always, come in the form of attached housing
units such as condos, townhomes, and duplexes.
These units can represent a more affordable
homeownership opportunity for first-time buyers,
as well as provide opportunities for downsizing
empty nesters looking to reduce maintenance
burdens.
3. There are too few affordable units, especially
at smaller 1- and 2-bedroom sizes. In all counties
and regionwide, there is a pronounced shortage
of units affordable to lower-income households
(especially those with incomes below $35k). While
the regional gap is most pronounced for lowest-
cost 1-bedroom rental units, affordable ownership
units are also in very short supply.
4. Significant growth is expected in the number
of households over the next decade. In most
counties, projected low-income household counts
are either steady or declining. There are likely
several explanations for this trend among low-
income households that extend beyond the housing
market but it should be monitored nonetheless
to ensure displacement or cost burden are not
intensifying as a consequence. Also, despite a net
decrease in total low-income households, new
households at these income levels are expected to
enter the market over the next 5-years. Given the
general shortage of housing options affordable to
them, future production of units corresponding to
their ability to pay therefore remains a need.
5. New housing production is needed at most
cost levels with a considerable portion below
market rate. While most counites will see demand
for market rate rental and ownership housing
continue, a substantial portion of new demand
may require some level of subsidy or other support
to deliver. The findings suggest modest demand
for mid- and higher-cost 3+ bedroom houses but,
as finding #1 suggests, there is technically a surplus
of these units already. Future production of these
units could be offset by existing units becoming
available through market churn as misaligned
households move out of some of them in favor of
other types that better fit their preferences and
ability to pay.
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 75
Methodology
The following section supplements notes in the findings sections to further explain the methodology behind this
report’s analyses, including:
• Current preferences
• Current supply
• Current market alignment
• Growth projection
• Production need forecast
• 5-year production need
CURRENT PREFERENCES
Housing preferences are derived by analyzing the housing choices made by Midwest households who moved within
the last 12 months per the most recent census (in this case, 2021 Census ACS). By isolating just these recent movers,
the analysis can model housing market decisions typical households of various incomes and sizes are making
in the present market based on their current needs and ability to pay. This is referred to as the market’s “current
preferences.”
By measuring the housing choices made most recently by households of different incomes and family compositions
across the Midwest, the study distills the current trends and preferences driving market dynamics today. The analysis
takes this measure of current trends and preferences and applies it to the Central Indiana region’s population to
model what housing choices its residents would make if moving today (setting aside what choices they may have
made in the past under different economic and market conditions). Comparing the units households actually occupy
to where they would prefer under current circumstances, we can identify gaps in the current supply that signal
potentially unmet need and market demand in terms of cost, typology, and tenure.
Current housing preferences
Household Income
Maximum monthly
housing cost 1BR 2BR 3BR 4BR+ 1BR 2BR 3BR 4BR+
Less than $15,000 $313 30301 8069 4541 5048 15528 3623 1086 1516
$15,000-24,999 $521 20422 8811 4186 5758 12445 6867 1467 2312
$25,000-34,999 $729 17750 9683 5071 4650 13838 9962 2538 3254
$35,000-49,999 $1,042 19984 11739 5308 7055 17917 18197 5422 6788
$50,000-74,999 $1,563 13773 14008 7048 9959 17941 32911 13038 17816
$75,000-99,999 $2,083 6151 8239 3759 4801 10052 27597 12836 19958
$100,000-$149,999 $3,125 2816 5385 2201 5217 7587 35254 18227 34261
$150,000-199,999 $4,167 571 1363 770 670 1170 14341 8736 18649
$200,000 or more 1100 1091 489 453 3049 16810 8313 20868
Rent Own
Notes:
•.Darker blues indicate unit types more households would prefer.
•Lighter blues indicate unit types fewer households would prefer.
Ability to pay vs. Willingness
to pay
This analysis caps what a
household has the ability
to pay at the 25% + 5% level
noted at left. Especially in
the case of lower income
households, some are willing
to pay more than this to
obtain needed housing but
typically only because the
limited choices available
force a compromise on price.
Ideally, a local housing market
does not require households
to exceed this reasonable
ability to pay to find housing
options that work for them
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 76
CURRENT SUPPLY
The analysis’ housing supply model consists of a parcel-level inventory of all housing units within the region.
Incorporating Census data, rental data from CoStar, real-time cost information from web-scraping algorithms,
and other sources, the model establishes a predictive technique to assign monthly cost attributes to each unit using
statistical regression and related methods. The model incorporates HUD data on public and subsidized unit totals,
costs, and bedroom counts at the county level.
CURRENT MARKET ALIGNMENT
Comparing the current distribution of preferences against the current housing supply reveals how well aligned (or
how misaligned) these two sides of the market are at each income level, tenure, and unit size. Shortages occur when
there are more households preferring a given unit profile (cost, tenure, size) than there are such units available within
the geography. Surpluses occur when there are more of a given unit profile than there are households who would
prefer it.
The results of this analysis should be considered indicative of potential future shifts in settlement patterns and not
necessarily predictive of where or when households might actively change units. There are numerous personal
reasons a household might choose to move or remain in a given year. Additionally, for those that did move, a unit
matching their exact preference might not be available.
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 77
GROWTH PROJECTION
As a precursor to estimating future housing production targets, the household growth projection establishes the
trajectory of growth that will drive future housing demand. Past years’ change is derived from corresponding years’
Census data. This should be considered the actual, observed flux in household counts by income over the past decade
or so. This historical data extends to 2021, the latest year for which Census data is available.
The five-year projection is derived from ESRI estimates for household change by income between 2021 and 2027.
The future projection originates from 2021, the most recent Census year. 2033 projections are derived from Woods
& Poole estimates, a widely citied source for long-term population and employment projections. Future projections
are adjusted to 2021 dollars.
The projection’s income brackets correspond to housing cost brackets in other parts of the report to inform links
between household change and potential housing demand.
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
900,000
2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032
Households
$100,000-150,000
$75,000-100,000
$50,000-75,000
Less than $15,000
+111,000
households
by 2033
739k
households
850k
$15,000-25,000
$25,000-35,000
$35,000-50,000
$200,000+
$150,000-200,000
Last Census year
Household growth, by income bracket
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 78
PRODUCTION NEED FORECAST
The housing production forecast establishes how many units are needed over the next 5 years to accommodate
expected new demand. Demand is primarily driven by household growth and driven by the need for more units to
accommodate more people.
A vacancy rate of about 5% is considered indicative of a healthy housing market. Lower vacancy rates constrain
potential movers and might drive up prices. Therefore, this analysis considers the current vacancy rate and, if under
5%, adds units to support a future rate closer to the healthy standard.
Though some more so than others, All housing markets include some units that are or will be demolished in the course
of new development, either because they are unfit for habitation or obsolete and more economically replaced than
refurbished. The production forecast considers the typical age and condition of local housing stock to assign a
replacement factor and adds units to the total accordingly.
Data sources include Census, ESRI, and Woods & Poole
(80,000.00)
(60,000.00)
(40,000.00)
(20,000.00)
-
20,000.00
40,000.00
60,000.00
Units
Housing production need forecast
+63.2k household
growth 2018-2023
+ 37.5k new households
+ 2k Replacement adjustment
+ 2.6k Vacancy adjustment
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 79
FIVE YEAR PRODUCTION NEED
This step in the analysis translates the production need forecast into a distribution of needed housing units in terms
of cost, tenure (rent/own), and bedroom count. Larger numbers indicate unit types (cost/tenure/size) that should be
developed at higher volumes to meet expected household growth. Smaller numbers indicate unit types less urgently
in need based on projected household growth.
The table is annotated with the approximate % AMI levels associated with each monthly cost bracket to help indicate
which batches of units might require subsidy or other support to deliver. In general, housing that is affordable to
households at or above 120% AMI is considered feasible to develop without subsidy.
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 80
Central Indiana Region
CURRENT PREFERENCES
This table indicates the housing cost, size, and tenure a household would most likely select if in the market for
housing today. Preferences are informed by factors including income, household size, and current tenure. The
factors are benchmarked against Midwest regional housing trends. Findings are consistent with related results
from the recent MIBOR survey of consumer preferences.
Key takeaway: Regional housing preferences are concentrated around low-cost small rentals and middle- to
higher-priced ownership units.
Current housing preferences
Household Income
Maximum monthly
housing cost 1BR 2BR 3BR 4BR+ 1BR 2BR 3BR 4BR+
Less than $15,000 $313 30301 8069 4541 5048 15528 3623 1086 1516
$15,000-24,999 $521 20422 8811 4186 5758 12445 6867 1467 2312
$25,000-34,999 $729 17750 9683 5071 4650 13838 9962 2538 3254
$35,000-49,999 $1,042 19984 11739 5308 7055 17917 18197 5422 6788
$50,000-74,999 $1,563 13773 14008 7048 9959 17941 32911 13038 17816
$75,000-99,999 $2,083 6151 8239 3759 4801 10052 27597 12836 19958
$100,000-$149,999 $3,125 2816 5385 2201 5217 7587 35254 18227 34261
$150,000-199,999 $4,167 571 1363 770 670 1170 14341 8736 18649
$200,000 or more 1100 1091 489 453 3049 16810 8313 20868
Notes:
•.Darker blues indicate unit types more households would prefer.
•Lighter blues indicate unit types fewer households would prefer.
CURRENT SUPPLY
This table summarizes the IMPO region’s housing supply in terms of cost, size, and tenure. Based on a parcel-level
analysis of all units in the region, this survey draws from a variety of data sources to estimate monthly costs across
housing types and tenures for all units in the region.
Key takeaway: Most of the region’s housing consists of mid/high-priced 3-bed and 4+ bed owned houses, with
a secondary concentration of mid-priced rentals.
Household Income
Maximum monthly
housing cost 1BR 2BR 3BR 4BR+ 1BR 2BR 3BR 4BR+
Less than $15,000 $313 2664 1653 1089 0 13 98 165 102
$15,000-24,999 $521 9712 5282 2994 36 155 902 596 169
$25,000-34,999 $729 14854 5092 863 85 523 6605 4549 556
$35,000-49,999 $1,042 31363 32499 5861 416 965 17956 26209 4002
$50,000-74,999 $1,563 23638 61792 32246 4437 1070 24547 91935 20294
$75,000-99,999 $2,083 4713 18668 24086 7058 511 10429 73599 46269
$100,000-$149,999 $3,125 582 4148 7632 5762 356 4757 49287 60868
$150,000-199,999 $4,167 183 470 160 255 64 669 13348 18835
$200,000 or more 0 96 54 1 44 229 5714 13026
Current housing supply
Notes:
•.Darker blues indicate proportionally higher volumes of units
•Lighter blues and white indicate proportionally lower unit counts.
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 81
MARKET ALIGNMENT
Comparing current housing preferences with today’s supply reveals misalignments in the housing landscape. These
shortages and surpluses are referred to as “potential” because the units are occupied and the households are housed,
just not as appropriately as they could be. However, if/when misaligned households move, they will likely relocate to a
units that better fit their preferences and ability to pay
Key takeaway: The region has a shortage of lower-priced small rentals and condos as well as higher-priced
condos/townhomes. There is a surplus of mid-priced 3-bed houses.
GROWTH PROJECTION
This table tracks total household change over time by income to indicate overall trends as well as growth or reduction
within individual income brackets. These income brackets correspond to household income and housing unit cost
levels on other charts in this section to help compare the current status with historical and future conditions.
Key takeaway: The region is projected to add about 111,000 households by 2033, with net growth at higher
incomes and net reduction at lower incomes.
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
900,000
2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032
Households
$100,000-150,000
$75,000-100,000
$50,000-75,000
Less than $15,000
739k
households
850k
$15,000-25,000
$25,000-35,000
$35,000-50,000
$200,000+
$150,000-200,000
Last Census year
Household growth, by income bracket
Household Income
Maximum monthly
housing cost 1BR 2BR 3BR 4BR+ 1BR 2BR 3BR 4BR+
Less than $15,000 $313 -27637 -6416 -3452 -5048 -15515 -3525 -921 -1414
$15,000-24,999 $521 -10710 -3529 -1192 -5722 -12290 -5965 -871 -2143
$25,000-34,999 $729 -2896 -4591 -4208 -4565 -13315 -3357 2011 -2698
$35,000-49,999 $1,042 11379 20760 552.8 -6639 -16952 -241 20787 -2786
$50,000-74,999 $1,563 9865 47784 25198 -5522 -16871 -8364 78897 2478
$75,000-99,999 $2,083 -1438 10429 20327 2257 -9541 -17168 60763 26311
$100,000-$149,999 $3,125 -2234 -1237 5431 545 -7231 -30497 31060 26607
$150,000-199,999 $4,167 -388 -893 -610 -415 -1106 -13672 4612 186
$200,000 or more -1100 -995 -435 -452 -3005 -16581 -2599 -7842
Rent Own
Notes:
•Red cells indicate a shortage (darker shades indicate proportionally larger shortages).
•Green cells indicate a surplus (darker shades indicate proportionally larger surpluses).
Current housing market alignment
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 82
5-YEAR PRODUCTION NEED
This table parses the housing production projection by unit cost, size, and tenure. This tabulation reflects these
households’ expected mix of household incomes, sizes, and tenure preferences. The table also indicates how units
correspond to different income levels in terms of AMI. Units at or above 80% are less likely to require subsidy than
those below.
Despite net reduction in low-income households, new low-income households are projected to enter the market and
thus need housing. Existing low-cost housing units could absorb some of this demand, but only if current residents
churn out of them first, which might be unlikely given the overall shortage of low-cost housing.
Key takeaway: A substantial portion of projected new households entering the market will have moderate
to extremely low incomes, suggesting the need for subsidy and/or creative financing to produce sufficient
attainable housing.
Maximum monthly
housing cost 1BR 2BR 3BR 4BR+1BR 2BR 3BR 4BR+
$313 76 50 22 7 1 8 8 3 Extremely low <30% AMI*
(Below $28k)$521 33 32 12 3 1 5 7 2
$729 54 65 24 7 2 16 20 6 Very low 30-50% AMI ($28k-$47k)
$1,042 107 142 53 16 5 35 60 19 Moderate to Low Income 50-80% AMI
($47k-$75k)$1,563 86 140 57 15 6 52 108 40
$2,083 3 17 45 27 20 36 20 5 Workforce housing 80-120% AMI
($75k-$113k)$3,125 18 44 24 8 3 25 80 70
$4,167 15 42 27 13 4 20 91 126 Market-rate housing >120% AMI
(Above $113k)More than $4,167 28 66 51 18 3 42 121 258
Five-year production need
Notes:
•.Darker purples indicate proportionally higher production volumes needed.
•Lighter purples and white indicate proportionally lower production volumes needed.
•The region’s Area Median Income (AMI) = $94k
5-YEAR PRODUCTION COMPARISON BY COUNTY
These tables compare production need between counties to illustrate where expected need is distributed within the
region. The comparison is broken down by tenure (own/rent) and relative cost to suggest needed housing typologies
and levels of affordability.
Key takeaway: A substantial portion of new housing needed to accommodate projected household growth is
below market rate cost and thus may require subsidy or other support to deliver. Though the region is projected
to see a net-decline in low-income households, there are still many new low-income households entering the
market who will need accommodation given the systemic shortage of affordable options to begin with.
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
11,000
Boone Hamilton Hancock Hendricks Johnson Marion Morgan Shelby
Own
Additional housing units,
by income group
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
11,000
Boone Hamilton Hancock Hendricks Johnson Marion Morgan Shelby
Rent
Additional housing units,
by income group
83
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY | INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
83
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY | INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
CONTRIBUTING
FACTORS
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 84
Overview
Previous Central Indiana Housing Study deliverables
have assessed and analyzed the housing market
by evaluating housing development patterns,
documenting socioeconomic conditions, and gauging
supply/demand alignment and county and regional
levels. Together, these perspectives combine to tell
much of the story, but there is meaningful nuance they
are not able to capture.
This study process has also included dozens of
meetings with a wide range of stakeholders, including
staff from most of the region’s municipalities,
professionals focused on a variety of local and regional
issues, members of the development and builder
communities, and advocates for under-represented
communities. During these discussions, many topics
emerged that help build the broader story behind
the numbers – these are the contributing factors that
underpin the market assessments and analyses done
so far.
“Contributing factors” refer to the underlying
dynamics and trends that might not be directly evident
in the primary analysis but are operating “behind the
scenes” to shape housing access and attainability
for many across the region. In some cases, these
factors represent structural limitations that lead to
disparities in housing quality and access for certain
populations, such as housing accessibility for seniors
and people with disabilities. In other cases, the factors
are only expressed under certain conditions, but may
disproportionally impact come population more than
others, such as high mortgage rates and prospective
first-time homebuyers.
This document supplements prior deliverables by
compiling the contributing factors local stakeholders
have identified as particularly impactful and important
to add to study, including:
• Transportation, including walkability, transit,
access to a vehicle, and connection to jobs.
• Market dynamics, including construction costs,
mortgage rates, cost of living, wages, economic
disruption, and corporate-owned houses.
• Local dynamics, including local regulations,
public opinion, and political conditions.
• Contributing factors for vulnerable
populations, including seniors and people with
disabilities, immigrants and refuges, ethnic and
racial minorities, and low-income households.
IMPACT ANALYSIS
The impact analysis examines to what degree a given
contributing factor affects an individuals’ housing
attainability as well as the overall market’s health
and viability. For example, some factors impact
limited populations but to a large degree, such as
lack of access to bank financing for undocumented
immigrants. Other factors are more universally
experienced but may have more incremental impacts,
such as gradual inflation and cost of living increases.
Additionally, some factors are currently impacting
people today and others are potential impacts that
might emerge in the future.
Each contributing factor described in this report is
accompanied by an impact analysis snapshot that
summarizes the factor’s relative effect on individual
and regional housing attainability from the following
perspectives:
• Scope: How broadly does this factor influence
housing attainability across the region?
• Affordability impact: For those impacted by
this factor, how much does it influence housing
affordability?
• Access impact: For those impacted by this
factor, how much does it influence their access to
housing?
EXAMPLE IMPACT ANALYSIS SNAPSHOT
• Scope: 20-25% of the population and
growing
• Affordability impact: Price secondary to
access
• Access impact: Can severely limit options for
some
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 85
Transportation
Transportation costs represent a significant share
of many households’ annual spending. Nationally,
the average household spends about $10k
on transportation. According to the Center for
Neighborhood Technology’s H+T index, this total is
almost $14k in the Central Indiana region, nearly as
much as these households spend on housing. Especially
for lower-income households already struggling with
the cost of housing, opportunities to save money
on transportation can help stabilize household
finances and reduce the risk of displacement by
increasing their ability to pay for housing.
A household’s access to transportation can also
determine which communities and neighborhoods
they can live and which they might not be able to
consider given mobility-related constraints.
This section reviews several transportation factors
that can impact housing access and affordability:
• Walkability, including cost savings associated
with fewer vehicular trips when more of a
household’s needs are met within walking
distance.
• Proximity to transit, including cost savings
associated with reduced reliance on a personal
vehicle in cases where sufficiently robust and
well-connected transit routes can substitute.
• Access to a vehicle, including the degree to which
owning a personal vehicle is essentially required
to live in certain parts of the region.
• Connection to jobs, including the relationship
between economic development and a diverse
local housing supply.
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 86
TRANSPORTATION: WALKABILITY
Households living in walkable neighborhoods often
spend less on transportation, reducing overall cost
of living burden and improving the ability for a
household to attain housing of their choice. The more
services, amenities, and resources available within a
walkable distance, the less reliant households will be
on personal vehicles or even transit trips.
While there are some pockets of walkability in the donut
counties, the most walkable areas are concentrated in
Marion County, indicating most of the region requires
access to a vehicle or transit to reach most of what
they need.
Because there are strong demand for housing in
walkable environments, this factor can also contribute
to higher prices and competition, especially given the
limited supply in this region.
IMPACT ANALYSIS SNAPSHOT
• Scope: Most of the region is not very
walkable
• Affordability impact: Walkability can reduce
cost of living
• Access impact: Generally low except those
without vehicle or transit
TRANSPORTATION: PROXIMITY TO
TRANSIT
Housing located within walking distance of transit
that connects to job centers and other necessary
destinations help reduce dependency on expensive
personal vehicles and thus reduce costs of living,
freeing more income to cover housing expenses.
Some areas offer robust transit access within walking
distance of housing concentrations, such as IndyGo’s
Red Line corridor in central Indianapolis. The Central
Indiana Regional Transportation Authority (CIRTA)
which operates at a regional level provides routes with
an emphasis on connecting to regional employment
centers across county lines. However, much of the
region is underserved by transit and thus require
personal or shared vehicles to access jobs, services,
and other needs. As such, only a small portion of
the region’s households currently benefit from the
convenience and cost savings proximity to transit can
offer.
IMPACT ANALYSIS SNAPSHOT
• Scope: Most of the region is underserved
• Affordability impact: Transit can lower cost of
living
• Access impact: Except those who have no
vehicle
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 87
TRANSPORTATION: ACCESS TO A
VEHICLE
When living in a walkable neighborhood or with access
to robust transit that connects to needed destinations,
a car-free or car-lite lifestyle can offer a viable, lower-
cost option for households. However, given Central
Indiana’s limited transit service and relatively few
walkable neighborhoods, reliable access to a vehicle
is essential for most households to conduct their daily
lives comfortably and conveniently.
Households without reliable access to a vehicle are
limited to the housing options available in these
walkable and/or transit-served areas which tend to
be concentrated in Marion County. As a result, these
households are effectively excluded from the housing
options, jobs, schools, and services available in the
donut counties.
IMPACT ANALYSIS SNAPSHOT
• Scope: Limited, most households own
vehicles
• Affordability impact: Not closely related
• Access impact: Can severely limit options for
some
TRANSPORTATION: CONNECTION TO
JOBS
Given the region’s uneven distribution of jobs and
housing across the eight counties, households may limit
their housing search to areas within reasonable range
of their place of work. Places with good connectivity
to employment centers are therefore more viable
options for a greater range of households than places
that are more isolated or otherwise disconnected.
On the other of the coin, employers are often more
likely to locate new investment and jobs in places
offering the housing options their employees would
need. Therefore, diversifying the local housing
stock can help attract jobs and follow-on economic
development impacts.
IMPACT ANALYSIS SNAPSHOT
• Scope: Widespread, jobs and housing
scattered regionally
• Affordability impact: Long commutes are
expensive
• Access impact: Impactful if commute time
intolerable
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 88
Market Dynamics
Market dynamics directly and indirectly impact
housing attainability and access in numerous ways.
For example, housing prices are directly tied to
construction and financing costs. Households can
struggle to keep up with housing costs when overall
costs of living increase.
Compared to other contributing factors, market
dynamics can be the most unpredictable, creating
unexpected hardship and disadvantage such as in
cases where the timing of pivotal housing changes
or decisions happen to align with unfortunate market
swings.
This section reviews several economic factors that can
impact housing access and affordability:
• Construction costs, including impacts on housing
production rates.
• Mortgage rates, including the dramatic
affordability disparities a few points of rate
change can create.
• Cost of living, including the challenges of
managing housing costs during periods of
inflation.
• Jobs and wages, including housing costs’ impact
on staffing essential service positions in high-cost
communities.
• Economic disruptions, including the region’s
communities that are particularly vulnerable.
•
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 89
MARKET DYNAMICS: CONSTRUCTION
COSTS
Changing construction costs impact housing
attainability in a number of ways, from new home
pricing to production rates to renovation costs.
Especially since Covid, construction costs have
become very volatile, with supply chain disruptions
and material shortages across the country. In parallel,
the cost of labor has been rising steadily over recent
years. These dynamics have driving up the cost of new
home construction which is passed onto buyers who
happen to be in the market at the time.
Some developers and builders may delay construction
schedules to avoid cost spikes, reducing new inventory
despite strong demand across types and cost levels.
These dynamics also drive up costs of home repair and
renovation projects, potentially impacting household
wealth such as among lower-income and older
households with less ability to earn back the equity
they borrow against to complete the work.
IMPACT ANALYSIS SNAPSHOT
• Scope: Widespread, impacts all development
across the region
• Affordability impact: Increases cost
significantly
• Access impact: Limits options for cost-
sensitive
MARKET DYNAMICS: MORTGAGE RATES
Mortgage rates can have a major impact on housing
affordability. As the chart at right illustrates, a 4-point
rate increase translates to a $155k reduction in the
home price a household can afford to pay.
Rate volatility is particularly challenging because its
cycles might not coincide with a household’s purchasing
timeframe. For example, the higher the rates when a
household decides/needs to relocate, the lower their
attainable purchase price and, by extension, the equity
they can build in the new property.
High interest rates can also present a barrier for first-
time homebuyers, delaying when they can purchase or
forcing compromises on what and where they buy.
For homeowners who need to refinance or take an
equity loan, the rate at that moment determines how
much of their equity may erode in the process.
IMPACT ANALYSIS SNAPSHOT
• Scope: All homebuyers seeking financing
• Affordability impact: High, directly influences
monthly costs
• Access impact: Limits options for cost-
sensitive
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 90
MARKET DYNAMICS: COST OF LIVING
While housing represents perhaps a household’s
largest regular expense, other costs of living also
impact household finances and can compete with
housing when budgets are tight. While some essential
items do not experience much price volatility (ex. fruit
and vegetables), others may swing more dramatically
(ex. gasoline and energy).
Compounded by inflation, price increases of essential
items can put pressure on a household’s ability to
maintain their current housing situation and could
contribute to a risk of displacement, especially if renting
or facing parallel challenges such as unemployment or
health problems.
Gasoline
Bananas
Milk
Beef
Eggs
Nat. gas
IMPACT ANALYSIS SNAPSHOT
• Scope: Widespread, all residents impacted
• Affordability impact: Directly influences
monthly costs
• Access impact: Limits options for cost-
sensitive
MARKET DYNAMICS: JOBS AND WAGES
Related to cost of living, the region’s jobs and wages
drive housing affordability by governing how much
households employed in different sectors can pay for
housing.
The table at right indicates median salaries by job type
in the Central Indiana region. Single-earner households
in these professions are limited to housing options and
community locations that are affordable based on
these wages. Multi-earner households that combine
multiple incomes can afford more but, depending on
the jobs held, they still may be limited to certain options
and locations.
In communities with particularly high housing costs, it
might be hard for workers in essential services such as
public safety and education to find housing near their
jobs, leading to long commutes from lower-cost places
and making it more difficult for the higher-cost places
to attract these workers in the first place.
Occupation Wages and Salary
Secondary school teacher $44,162
Computer programmer $59,459
Registered nurse $52,643
Agricultural and food
science technicians $78,000
Firefighters $69,133
Machinist $42,473
Physician $247,032
IMPACT ANALYSIS SNAPSHOT
• Scope: Widespread, all residents impacted
• Affordability impact: Directly influences ability
to cover monthly costs
• Access impact: Limits options for cost-
sensitive
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 91
MARKET DYNAMICS: CORPORATE-
OWNED HOUSES
Across many parts of the region, investors and
corporations have acquired increasing numbers of
single-family houses, typically converting them to
rental units in the process. In some communities, as
much as 30% of the single-family housing is corporate
owned. The CIHS’s analysis of corporate single-family
home investors also shows that this type of investment
negatively impacts homeownership and dampens
home values even as it drives up rents.
%
Investor
-owned
IMPACT ANALYSIS SNAPSHOT
• Scope: Geographically concentrated, but
growing
• Affordability impact: Varies - neighborhoods
with large concentrations of corporate owned
homes tend to see significant increases in rent,
even as home values are dampened.
• Access impact: Varies - neighborhoods with
large concentrations of corporate owned
homes may be more difficult to buy in.
MARKET DYNAMICS: ECONOMIC
DISRUPTION
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) established
the Social Vulnerability Index to highlight areas where
risk factors are particularly prevalent and, as a result,
households are less resilient to destabilizing shocks to
the community such as economic downturns, health
crises, and environmental disasters. In the wake of
such challenges, these households may be more likely
to face housing challenges during a recovery. For
example, the disruption may lead to a loss of income
that can threaten housing displacement.
IMPACT ANALYSIS SNAPSHOT
• Scope: Disproportiately impacts vulnerable
communities
• Affordability impact: Can paralyze incomes
• Access impact: Financial impacts can
destabilize housing
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 92
Local Dynamics
Local dynamics refers to conditions unique to individual
communities that affect housing.
This section reviews several factors that can impact
housing access and affordability:
• Local regulations, including zoning and design
standards.
• Public opinion, including movements to resist or
promote different forms of new development.
• Political conditions, including state legislation
and local BZAs.
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 93
LOCAL DYNAMICS: LOCAL REGULATIONS
The Central Indiana region includes a wide variety
of communities, each with its own sense of identity
and character. As such, many communities have
established local zoning and design standards aiming
to reinforce and extend how this character manifests
in new development.
As a side effect of this regulatory approach, some
housing typologies become excluded from the
community, limiting the local range of options for
new and existing residents. For example, a suburban
community might prefer a lower density environment
composed of single-family homes and thus restrict
or prohibit multifamily development in many or most
parts of the municipality.
Design standards intended to ensure new construction
reflects local character preferences can increase
development costs through requirements for
architectural styles and features that might be less
economical than a builder’s typical approach. These
costs are passed on to homebuyers, raising purchase
prices and thus reducing affordability.
IMPACT ANALYSIS SNAPSHOT
• Scope: Most communities regulate density,
form
• Affordability impact: Zoning and design
standards can either drive up costs or have a
moderating impact
• Access impact: Some housing types are very
constrained
LOCALY DYNAMICS: PUBLIC OPINION
Public opinion and perceptions about housing
development are major drivers of housing production
on several levels, from motivating new local regulations
to influencing the political discourse.
In many cases, public opinion is expressed in the form
of resistance to new development that represents
a change in course from the community’s prior
growth and development trajectory. This can result in
resistance to housing types that either don’t resemble
the existing local physical character or don’t align with
the types of new development residents believe would
be best for the community.
Another common perspective is a desire to modulate
the rate of growth and avoid new developments
that are larger and/or denser than residents believe
local infrastructure and services can handle. This can
have the side effect of increasing local housing prices
as supply remains constrained in face of growing
demand.
Given the public nature of the approvals process in
most places, a critical mass of vocal residents can
often effectively prevent development that they feel
is not desirable. There are also examples of public
opinion working toward change, such as movements
to promote community land trusts in Hamilton County.
IMPACT ANALYSIS SNAPSHOT
• Scope: Widespread, housing is a prominent
topic in most communities
• Affordability impact: Resistance to density
often translates to less affordable options
• Access impact: Resistance to growth and
density can limit new supply despite demand
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 94
LOCAL DYNAMICS: POLITICAL
CONDITIONS
Politics plays a significant role in shaping housing
regulation and production at local, regional, and state
levels. Public opinion is often a strong influence but
other forces factor in as well, such as industry groups
and lobbyists.
In Central Indiana, state legislation can significantly
impact local housing policy through bills that are
directly related to housing, as well as those that at first
may seem more indirect, such as property taxes. At the
local level, elected officials and planning commissions
are responsible for shaping land use regulations and
approving new development. The scale and nature
of future housing production is closely tied to their
positions on growth, land use, built form, and economic
development.
IMPACT ANALYSIS SNAPSHOT
• Scope: Widespread, housing is a key issue at
local, regional, and state levels
• Affordability impact: Varies, funding
established through state legislation can have
significant impacts
• Access impact: Local elected officials and
BZAs are gatekeepers for new supply
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 95
VULNERABLE POPULATIONS: SENIORS
AND PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES
The housing needs for seniors and people with
disabilities can be significantly different than other
types of households, often including unique features
and modifications within units along with other
constraints and requirements associated with their
specific circumstances. These groups are also often
more sensitive to fluctuations and disruptions in the
economy.
According to the Central Indiana Senior Fund, 1 in 5
residents in the region will be over 65 by 2030. Given
the rate at which this cohort is growing, the factors
contributing to their housing experience will become
more and more widespread and regionally impactful
over time.
This section reviews several factors that can impact
housing access and affordability for seniors and
people with disabilities:
• Accessibility, including how reduced mobility and
other special needs can limit housing choices.
• Affordability, including the vulnerabilities that
come with low- or fixed-incomes.
• Access to services, including how viable housing
options can be limited to the locations of
supportive resources.
• Aging in place, including the housing units
features and functions which may need
modification to accommodate an aging
householder.
Contributing Factors for
Vulnerable Populations
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 96
SENIORS AND PEOPLE WITH
DISABILITIES: ACCESSIBILITY
Physical accessibility is a primary limiting factor of
housing choices for seniors and people with disabilities.
Especially in areas with older housing stock, many
units cannot accommodate these population’s mobility
and other needs, significantly reducing their housing
choices in terms of the communities, neighborhoods,
and property types available. While units can be
modified for better accessibility, not all units are readily
adaptable (ex. units that are above the ground floor
or internally multilevel), and costs can be considerable.
Additionally, many landlords may not allow needed
modifications, disadvantaging renters even further.
The concept of accessibility extends beyond just the
individual’s accommodations. For example, residents
with disabilities may need a unit that can be accessed
by service providers who need to bring large equipment
into the home.
Additionally, seniors and people with disabilities cannot
visit friends or family whose homes are not accessible
to their needs, potentially imperiling important social
and family connections that contribute to mental
health and quality of life.
IMPACT ANALYSIS SNAPSHOT
• Scope: 20-25% of the population and
growing
• Affordability impact: May add a cost
premium
• Access impact: Can severely limit options for
some
SENIORS AND PEOPLE WITH
DISABILITIES: AFFORDABILITY
Like other demographic groups, housing represents
perhaps the largest expense for seniors. However,
there are several factors uniquely prominent among
seniors that can challenge their ability to afford the
housing they would prefer:
• Reduced or fixed income: Transitioning to part-
time work or retirement reduces earning power
and increases vulnerability to impacts such as
inflation, cost of living increases, unexpected
expenses, and other issues that can threaten
housing stability.
• Medical costs: Healthcare expenses generally
increase just as seniors’ earning power decreases,
adding vulnerability to their finances and living
situation.
• Demographic disparities: The financial risks
and impacts experienced by seniors are more
pronounced among minority groups who
generally have accumulated less wealth during
their lives (such as through wages and housing
equity) and thus are less insulated from financial
disruptions in older age.
IMPACT ANALYSIS SNAPSHOT
• Scope: 20-25% of the population and
growing
• Affordability impact: High, by definition
• Access impact: Can limit options for cost-
sensitive
Source: State of Aging
in Central Indiana
Report, Central Indiana
Senior Fund
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 97
SENIORS AND PEOPLE WITH
DISABILITIES: ACCESS TO SERVICES
For many seniors and people with disabilities, access to
services is essential to their health quality of life. These
services include routine healthcare, rehabilitation,
specialized healthcare, in-home provider visits,
equipment and medical supplies, and many others.
The services these populations depend on are not
evenly distributed across the Central Indiana region,
leaving those in need with the choice of selecting
housing in the limited areas that are well-served or
securing transportation to travel across the region to
reach services when needed. In the event housing is
too expensive for the former, likely preferred option,
they must compromise with the latter.
There are some service providers that make regular
house calls to help bridge these gaps and allow people
with disabilities more flexibility to live in their preferred
community and housing type. “Pocket communities”
is an emerging trend that combines specialized
services with housing in a neighborhood designed to
accommodate people with common special needs or
disabilities. Village of Merici in Lawrence is one leading
local example.
IMPACT ANALYSIS SNAPSHOT
• Scope: Smaller group, but distributed widely
and growing
• Affordability impact: May need to pay more
for housing with better access to services
• Access impact: Can severely limit options for
some
SENIORS AND PEOPLE WITH
DISABILITIES: AGING IN PLACE
For seniors with sufficient health and mobility, “aging in
place,” or remaining in the same housing unit into older
age, often promotes higher quality of life and lower
cost of living than moving into retirement or continuing
care facilities. There are several factors that impact
one’s ability to age in place, including:
• Housing unit accessibility: Many units require
moderate retrofits to accommodate changing
mobility needs, such as adding wheelchair
ramps, widening doorways, and replacing
door and cabinetry hardware. Modifying both
multilevel homes and rental units can be more
challenging.
• Energy efficiency: The cost of heating and
cooling a home can vary significantly with the
weather and energy prices. Homes that are
better insulated and include more efficient HVAC
systems are more likely to remain affordable
longer for aging adults.
• In-home services: Many seniors could stay in
their homes much longer if supported by a limited
set of in-home services supporting health needs
and general household tasks such as cleaning,
bathing, and cooking.
IMPACT ANALYSIS SNAPSHOT
• Scope: 20-25% of the population and
growing
• Affordability impact: Retrofits can be costly
• Access impact: Inability to remain in home can
lead to displacement
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 98
VULNERABLE POPULATIONS:
IMMIGRANTS AND REFUGEES
Housing needs for immigrants and refugees are
often significantly different than other populations.
Much of these differences are related to the broader
implications of being a new arrival to the country where
one might not have many resources, connections, or
language and cultural fluency yet. Other differences
are tied to circumstances and priorities that are unique
to these groups, such as tenuous legal status and
pressure to send money home and/or support family
members also attempting to move here.
This section reviews several factors that can impact
housing access and affordability for immigrants and
refugees:
• Legal status, including the many ways
undocumented status limits housing options.
• Language and cultural isolation, including the
tradeoffs associated with immigrating into to an
ethnic enclave community.
• Predatory landlords, including how this
impacts rental housing stability and efforts at
homeownership.
• Overcrowding, including the different
motivations to share units among several
households and family members.
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 99
IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE STATUS:
LEGAL STATUS
An individual’s legal citizenship status can significantly
impact their ability to access housing and related
services. For example, in most cases, a social security
number is required to rent an apartment or secure a
mortgage. Without it, people may be severely limited
in the housing options available and the means to
obtain them. They may need to seek out landlords and
sellers that are willing to operate more informally and
pay cash rather than use financing.
People without legal citizenship status can obtain an
Individual Tax Identification Number (ITIN) to pay
taxes, set up a bank account, and access other services
and programs that require proof of residency. Many
immigrants and refugees in the Central Indiana region
use ITIN to start businesses that help support their
families and cover housing costs.
Central Indiana Undocumented
Population (2019)
Total
undocumented
38,947 (some
estimates
much higher)
Years in the US
Less than 5 29.5%
5-9 17.0%
10-14 16.8%
15-19 20.5%
20 or more 16.1%
Employment status (16 years and
older)
Employed 64.6%
Unemployed,
seeking work
1.5%
Not in labor force 33.9%
Health insurance coverage
With coverage 53.5%
With no coverage 46.5%
IMPACT ANALYSIS SNAPSHOT
• Scope: Most prevalent among new arrivals
• Affordability impact: Impacts ability to earn
income
• Access impact: Significantly limits options for
those affected
IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE STATUS:
LANGUAGE AND CULTURAL ISOLATION
Like in many parts of the country, new immigrants and
refugees from common origins often settle together in
the same communities and neighborhood. This helps
new arrivals maintain social and cultural connections
as they transition into a new country and economy.
However, this can also limit housing options to those
available in the few places where these migrants might
feel comfortable relocating. Additionally, by living in
a community dominated by foreigners, these people
are insulated from the rest of the region and may not
assimilate linguistically, culturally, or professionally as
easily as they would if moving to a more diverse place.
While perhaps promoting a more comfortable day-
to-day lifestyle, this insulation can make it harder to
navigate life in the broader region, potentially limiting
access to jobs, education, services, and housing
options.
In many cases, these isolating conditions are mostly
limited to first-generation migrants. Subsequent
generations born and raised in the region tend to grow
up fluent in the local language and culture and ready
to spread out to other parts of the region, expanding
their access to housing choices that might better fit
their needs and preferences.
IMPACT ANALYSIS SNAPSHOT
• Scope: Most prevalent among new arrivals
• Affordability impact: Impacts ability to earn
income
• Access impact: Significantly limits options for
those affected
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 100
IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE STATUS:
PREDATORY LANDLORDS
By nature of their recent arrival and relative lack
of local connection or fluency, new immigrants and
refuges are often living under more precarious legal
and financial conditions than more established local
citizens. As a result, they can be more vulnerable
to predatory practices employed by landlords,
employers, and others they may rely on but cannot
necessarily hold to account legally.
Immigrant tenants may be subject to excessive rents
and substandard living conditions in exchange for a
landlord overlooking their undocumented status. While
these tenants are subject to the same fair housing laws
as other residents, they may not be aware of these
protections or may not believe they are protected
given their legal status.
There are also reports of rent-to-own schemes
wherein immigrant tenants pay cash rents to landlords
promising to credit the payments as home equity only
to be evicted after a time with no claim on the property.
IMPACT ANALYSIS SNAPSHOT
• Scope: Most prevalent among new arrivals
• Affordability impact: May lead to
overcharging, lost equity
• Access impact: Significantly limits options for
those affected
IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE STATUS:
OVERCROWDING
It is not uncommon for immigrant and refugee
communities to share housing units and bunk several
families together in a few bedrooms, especially during
the years immediately following their arrival. These
arrangements have many motivations, from a desire
to save as much money as possible (to send home
or save for a car or house) to providing temporary
housing for new arrivals that haven’t yet found a job or
residence of their own. Multigenerational households
are also more common among immigrant and refugee
communities, often requiring overcrowding to fit the
extended family into a unit small enough to afford.
For the most part, these groups are attempting to
adapt limited local housing options to meet their cost
constraints and space needs. Resulting overcrowding
can create code compliance issues as well as possible
health and safety risks for the occupants.
There are limited resources available to augment
these groups’ housing requirements so solutions to
overcrowding and other issues that stem from their
circumstances are difficult for advocates, service
providers, and communities to completely avoid or
even meaningfully mitigate.
IMPACT ANALYSIS SNAPSHOT
• Scope: Most prevalent among new arrivals
• Affordability impact: High, housing
unaffordable without it
• Access impact: Few alternative arrangements
available
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 101
VULNERABLE POPULATIONS: RACIAL
AND ETHNIC MINORITIES
The housing experience in Central Indiana can be
significantly different for racial and ethnic minorities
compared to the majority white population. In many
cases, these minority populations are more vulnerable
to challenges and hardships that can complicate or
inhibit their access to the quality, affordable housing
choices they might prefer. For example, the following
issues emerged from conversations with stakeholders
convened for this analysis:
• Homelessness: People experiencing
homelessness in Central Indiana are more likely to
be Black – and these Black individuals are more
likely to encounter harsher treatment than their
white counterparts.
• Access to financing: As has been well-
documented nationwide, minority households
(especially Black households) historically have
more trouble obtaining mortgages and other
housing-related financing resources than others
due to a legacy of systemic discrimination that,
while improving over time, may not be fully
resolved in all cases yet.
IMPACT ANALYSIS SNAPSHOT
• Scope: Legacy impacts widespread for these
groups
• Affordability impact: Varies, however limited
access to financing can severely limit
• Access impact: Can limit options
VULNERABLE POPULATIONS: LOW-
INCOME HOUSEHOLDS
Low-income households often have a more precarious
housing experience than there higher-income
counterparts for a variety of reasons. Conversations
with advocates and service providers for low-income
households highlighted the following factors:
• Constrained housing options: In many cases,
low-income households may be experiencing
other hardships that require ready access to
public services. Therefore, they may be limited
to housing options that are proximate to those
providers.
• Lack of wealth: Low-income households typically
also have low (or even negative) net worths and
likely lack access to generational wealth. This
means they may not have a financial backstop
to help maintain housing access through periods
of hardship and they may not have the resources
available to maintain bank accounts or finance a
mortgage.
• Precarious life experience: Sometimes, low-
income householders grew up under challenging
circumstances such as childhood poverty or time
in the foster system. These experiences may
have impacted their access to the resources and
education needed to start adulthood with housing
and employment stability.
IMPACT ANALYSIS SNAPSHOT
• Scope: Often concentrated in specific areas
• Affordability impact: High, by definition
• Access impact: Can severely limit options
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 102
103
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY | INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
103
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY | INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
CORPORATE
OWNED SINGLE-
FAMILY HOUSING
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 104
Overview
Investment into single family rentals (SFR) is not a new
phenomena. However, amidst the Great Recession
and the foreclosure crisis, a new set of investors with
a correspondingly new set of investment strategies
emerged owing to policy and macroeconomic
conditions. Corporate investors – or large firms that
are largely ‘alternative asset’ investment vehicles – are
starting to change the housing market. After hearing
from numberous stakeholders about their concerns
regarding corporate owned single-family housing, the
CIHS’s scope was expanded to include an analysis of
their effects in Central Indiana.
This project defines any ‘Corporate’ investor as a firm
with 25+ investment properties in the Central Indiana
region. There are 98 distinct corporate owners in the
Central Indiana region, cumulatively owning 20,893
single family homes.
An ‘Investor,’ is a firm or individual who owns 3-24
properties. Cumulatively, 26,164 single family homes
are owned by investors.
METHODOLOGY
This study is a rigorous assessment of corporate SFR
investment in the Indianapolis region. Its perspective
is informed by a literature review of emerging
academic and leading think-tank studies on corporate
SFR ownership in the United States. Most studies
today examine corporate SFR investment from an
inter-regional perspective. In other words, studies
mostly focus on comparing major metropolitan
regions where corporative investment takes place
and looks at the relationship between place-specific
and macroeconomic characteristics driving SFR
investment and the consequences on home ownership,
rents, home values, neighborhood stabilization, and
disinvestment. This study instead applies some of
these studies to examine intra-regional effects within
Central Indiana.
Additional details regarding study methodology can
be found in the CIHS appendix.
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 105
Key Takeaways
1. Corporate SFR investment is a regional issue:
Neighborhoods targeted by corporate investors
are suburban and exurban with Hamilton,
Hendricks, Johnson, and Hancock counties
experiencing some of the highest investment.
Neighborhoods are typically middle income and
in areas with slightly higher rates of minority
populations. These are historically working and
middle-class suburban neighborhoods that
enabled lower to middle income households
to purchase and own a home and build long-
term wealth. However, in an environment
marked by headwinds to homeownership, these
neighborhoods are now locations investor’s see
as strategic investments to maximize returns to
shareholders.
2. Corporate SFR investment negatively impacts
homeownership: This study reflects national
research that homeownership rates are negatively
impacted in areas where corporate ownership
of SFR’s is highest. The magnitude is even higher
for black and young households despite location
in areas historically popular with first-time
homebuyers.
3. Corporate SFR investment dampens home
value appreciation, but drives up rents: As profit
maximizing firms that strategically locate in areas
where projected demand outstrips supply and
where incomes are proportionally higher than
rents, corporate investors are savvy at increasing
rents to maximize earnings. However, investment
in these areas tends to dampen the appreciation
of home values. This could be a result of increased
turnover and holding assets to rent rather than
reselling and/or a result of regional differences
in home value appreciation as the highest
appreciating neighborhoods are in gentrifying
urban neighborhoods where rehabilitation and
resells are more common than SFRs.
4. Corporate SFR investors are more likely to
receive a code violation, far outstripping both
non-investor and investor classes: Corporate
investors have an average of 14.97 violations
per 100 homes, investors (3 – 24 properties) 7.87
violations, and non-investors 2.73 violations.
Corporate investors often target homes that need
rehabilitation. These investors see undervalued
homes in good neighborhoods as a competitive
advantage served by their ability to draw on
higher cash reserves, easier access to capital,
and to contract at scale to improve properties.
However, this improvement process may also be
cosmetic as code violations persist. Bad actors
– in particular firms operating in historically
underinvested, formerly redlined neighborhoods
with higher ratios of minority persons – are also
common and traceable, but not meaningfully
tracked or regulated which encourages ‘milking’
sub-standard housing for rental profits. Not all
corporate investors utilize these tactics, however
the impact to neighborhoods in which these
strategies are utilized can be significant.
5. Policy Matters: Central Indiana is attractive
to SFR corporate investors due to a number of
housing related policies unique to Indiana. Cities
with similar economic fundamentals but different
regulations and laws do not see the same scale of
investment and negative outcomes.
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 106
History of Corporate Owned Single-family Housing
Patterns of investment into single-family housing has changed substantially over the past two decades, but can be
grouped into three different time periods.
The Great Recession and Corporate Owners: As foreclosures mounted in the Great Recession, Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac bundled foreclosed homes and sold them in bulk to large investors. The policy sought to stabilize
neighborhoods crushed by subprime loans, high unemployment and underwater mortgages. Investors saw an
opportunity to buy low and sell high.
Recovery and Emergence of an Asset Class: After the Great Recession, revenue streams proved to be profitable.
As incomes stalled and would-be millennial first-time homebuyers remained entrenched in student debt, large
corporate investors saw the single-family rental market as a new asset class. New firms entered the market.
COVID-19: In response to economic devastation rendered by Covid-19, fiscal subsidies and supply chain disruption
drove inflation. To combat inflation, the federal reserve increased interest rates, sharply increasing mortgage
finance costs. Armed with cash borrowed cheaply during Covid-19, firms aggressively pursued new single-family
homes. Further buttressed by both increasing demand for single-family homes due to millennial family formation and
desire for more space in a work from home area, demand for the asset class skyrocketed, further driving corporate
acquisitions.
*Data is limited by 2023 ownership parcel data, meaning all parcels were purchased in the above
year and are still held by the same owner. Corporate or investor purchases that have since sold a
property are not included in this count.
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 107
Wave 1: The Great Recession, 2007-2013
Typical Neighborhood: Predominantly lower and
middle income neighborhoods where foreclosure
rates were highest. This aligns with neighborhoods
with higher minorities.
Wave 2: Post-Recession, 2014-2019
Typical Neighborhood: Focus shifted towards ‘middle
of the road’ neighborhoods with newer housing stock
built during the 2000-2008 boom. Median value of
homes in 2023 is $142,800, and median year built
1998, compared to $129,400 and 1962, respectively,
for investors.
Wave 3: A New Asset Class, 2020-2023
Typical Neighborhood: Investment remained focused
in single-family suburban neighborhoods with newer
homes. Median value of homes $155,800, and median
year built 1997. Further expansion into second ring
suburbs, especially in areas with new built-to-rent
communities.
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 108
INVESTOR VS CORPORATE OWNERSHIP: PRIOR TO 2013
Investor ownership of single-family homes is not a new phenomenon. Viewed spatially, investor ownership is much
more disbursed with higher rates of single family investor owned parcels in lower-income neighborhoods.
As corporate investors entered the Indianapolis market, they largely did so in first ring suburbs hard hit by the Great
Recession, but still primed for a bounce-back in values. Major differences exist in the median assessed value of these
homes today, the year they were built, and their correlation with other neighborhood indicators.
Purchases of foreclosed and vacant homes were common through government tax sales, many of which permitted
unlimited sales to single owners (Eason, 2015). Both large private equity firms and smaller regional investors leveraged
city-sales to convert foreclosed homes to rentals, at times without sufficiently updating properties in violation of
health codes.
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 109
INVESTOR VS CORPORATE OWNERSHIP: 2014 - 2019
As the economy recovered, investments into single-family homes as rentals proved profitable. Tailwinds supported
its growth as an industry. Quantitative easing produced immense capital at low rates to ‘alternative’ private equity
firms, enabling cash purchases at low financing costs. Simultaneously, private mortgage lenders faced increased
scrutiny and regulation, making it more difficult for individuals to secure financing for purchase or rehabilitation.
A clear strategy emerged for larger private equity firms. Firms focused on cities nationwide were earnings outpaced
rent growth, and within cities in middle-income neighborhoods, often with metro average economic and racial
diversity. Acquisitions focused on newer homes, and often leveraged working at scale to rehabilitate homes.
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 110
INVESTOR VS CORPORATE OWNERSHIP: 2020 - 2023
In the post-Covid era, corporate strategies doubled down on acquisitions in second ring and exurban locations.
Headwinds to rent growth in this region remained strong as millennial renters sought suburban benefits even as
home ownership remained out of reach for many. Macroeconomic factors again supported corporate ownership: In
the higher mortgage rate environment, access to cheap capital secured during the recession outcompeted individual
access to mortgages as interest rates spiked, providing an advantage in the marketplace for corporate investors
who could offer cash above asking.
The proportion of sales going to investors peaked in 2021 and 2022, far outpacing sales to smaller investors who
often pursued different strategies to the large corporate owners/ and/or were pushed out into less desirable markets.
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 111
Analysis on Impact of Corporate Ownership
Central Indiana is an interesting case-study for the
changing nature of investment into SFR. Once a
market dominated by smaller ‘Mom and Pop’ investors,
single-family homes are now a central strategy for
asset-managers to diversify Real Estate and financial
holdings.
SUMMARIZING RESULTS
Investment into SFR’s began in earnest in 2012 and
continued to accelerate into 2023. It has been, and
remains, a profitable asset class. The tailwinds that
drove the industry in the beginning – regulatory
changes such as Dodd Frank and Quantitative Easing
that reduced access to credit for small borrowers but
increased capital available for investors, technological
changes that enabled firms to quickly identify and
move on acquisitions, increased debt and lower
household incomes for millennial households, have not
abated. Many investors see the past decade as the
beginning.
So what are the consequences? Compared to
smaller investors where clear spatial patterns may be
difficult to identify, the large private equity investors
focus on more recently built lower and middle-tier
suburban homes in single-family neighborhoods in
first and second ring suburbs. These communities are
historically working-class single-family homeowning
neighborhoods that produced wealth for middle-
income families. This opportunity is changing.
How do they impact communities? Research – including
the research here – points towards lower rates of
home ownership in neighborhoods where acquisitions
are concentrated. Additional housing supply spurred
by market demand in these specific places does not
adequately compensate for the loss of housing stock.
By targeting lower-middle tier homes, the impact
on home ownership is more severe on those who
traditionally pursue this market – younger first-time
homeowners and more economically marginalized
communities of color. Within these communities, rents
have accelerated faster. Not only do SFR tend to have
higher rental rates than apartments, but it appears
corporate entities are more profit-maximizing than
smaller investors. If, on the one hand, they maximize
profits, evidence also suggests that they have a
higher rate of code violations, indicating higher rates
of property neglect and disinvestment than owner-
operators or smaller investors.
On average, large corporate investors are far more
likely to have a code violation than smaller investors
and non-investors, with 14.97 violations per 100 homes
on average for corporate owners. This indicates that
corporate owners, on average, are less responsive
than smaller investors to renter needs, as renters are
more likely to report violations in the event a landlord
is nonresponsive to fix issues.
Investor Type Mean Violations per 100 Homes
Corporate Investor 14.97
Investor 7.87
Not Investor 2.73
The graph below is sorted from most violations per
property to lowest amongst corporate investors who
own 50 or more single family properties in the region.
A clear relationship exists between the age of the
portfolio of properties and the odds that there
has been a reported and verified code violation. A
large proportion of negligent landlords are regional
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 112
operators that may focus on more risky investments.
Of the region’s largest national investors with
significant violations, Vinebrook Homes and First Key
Homes have a much larger portfolio of older, lower
valued homes than national competitors, driving a
higher ratio of homes with violations. Another ‘class’
of owners with higher rates of violations are Roth-
IRA aggregators: Or firms that enable individuals to
use their Roth IRA savings to invest in real estate. As
an aggregator, it appears they are less likely to have
centralized property management services leading to
greater property negligence.
Evidence suggests that single family house price
appreciation is also dampened by corporate investor
presence. This may be a consequence of declining
demand in neighborhoods with higher rates of
corporate ownership. Empirically higher rates of
disinvestment and anecdotal stories detailing the
detrimental impact of neighborhood turnover may
contribute.
The story is not limited to large private equity firms.
As the business model developed, new entrants and
historically smaller regional entities started to pursue
riskier strategies. This includes pursuing older homes
in historically disinvested neighborhoods. While this
may stabilize home prices, the impact on tenants may
be more severe. The highest rates of code violations
relative to property owned belong to mid-sized
regional investors who owned 25 or more homes, far
outpacing smaller investors and LLCs.
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
To understand the impact of corporate ownership
on the Central Indiana housing market, a difference
in means analysis was conducted that examined the
differences between neighborhoods with high rates
of corporate ownership compared to neighborhoods
with lower rates. Measurements included:
• Change in Single Family Homeownership Rate:
The single family home ownership rate is a
statistic derived for the American Community
Survey that examines tenure by building type,
where here we limited type to single-family
detached homes. The statistic was taken for each
tract from the ACS 5-year survey, for 2012 and
for 2021, with the difference between the two
measuring the change.
• Change in Young Household Homeownership
Rate: To measure the impact on first-time
homebuyers, this statistic takes the home-
ownership rate for all households where the
householder is between 25-44 years old. The
difference was calculated the same as the single
family statistic.
• Change in Black Homeownership Rate:
Historically black neighborhoods faced
both historic disinvestment and predatory
inclusion into housing markets, leading to
lower rates of homeownership, less access to
home improvement loans, and higher rates of
foreclosure. The black homeownership rate was
also used as a comparison metric.
• Change in Median Values: Median home values
are derived from the ACS Table 25077 that
includes the median home value for each tract.
• Change in Median Rents: Median rents are
derived from ACS Table 25064 that includes the
median rent for each tract.
• Income Level is a statistic taken by dividing
the tract’s median household income by the
metropolitan CBSA median.
• Median Year Built is derived from the parcel
database by spatially aggregating single family
parcels in each tract and determining the
median.
• Minority Presence is a statistic derived from the
ACS population and is created by adding all non-
white persons of color and dividing by the total
population.
• Percent with Bachelors is the ratio of people in
each tract that have completed a Bachelor’s
Degree or more.
• Married Households measures the ratio of
married household types relative to all households
in the tract.
• The Median Age is the median age of people in
each tract.
The correlation between these variables can be
analyzed on the Correlation Heat Map included in the
appendix. A difference in means approach was utilized
due limitations in data that precluded a deeper panel
regression modeling exercise to determine causation.
The difference in means approach can meaningful
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 113
understand the correlation between corporate
SFR and social and housing market indicators by
understanding if the difference in mean values for
each tract is a consequence of real phenomena or
simply statistical randomness. Further discussion on
the variables included and the process of dataset
creation can be accessed upon request in the form of
an annotated Jupyter Notebook.
Characteristics of Targeted Neighborhoods
The table below analyses the neighborhoods targeted
by large corporate investors by taking a difference of
means approach. The means of each statistic were
taken for neighborhoods where corporate ownership
of single family rentals exceeded 30% compared to
where they were less. The differences in means were
tested for statistical significance using one-sided
t-tests.
The most evident correlations are:
• Higher Declines in Single-Family Home
Ownership (HO)
• Higher Declines in Black Home Ownership
• Higher Declines in Young HH Home Ownership
• Greater change in Median Rents
• Less Home Value Growth
Areas targeted have:
• Higher Ratios of Minority Households
• Slightly higher Median Incomes than the Metro
• Newer Single-Family Homes
• Younger Neighborhoods
POTENTIAL STRATEGIES
Rental Registration and Licensing
A rental registration and licensing ordinance can be
an important tool to monitor and regulate the rental
housing market. Registries maintain a database
of licensed rental properties in a region. A registry
requiring the true owners can ensure greater
transparency in the market for research, policy, and
market transparency, ensuring firms cannot obfuscate
their behavior behind a multitude of LLCs (see,
Minneapolis, MN, where the true owner is required in
the rental license program).
While Indianapolis has an existing rental registration
program that was created in 2015, gaps in its system
exist and additional steps should be taken to increase
its efficacy. A best-in-practice rental registration
and licensing program would track key indicators,
such as occupied housing code violations, eviction
rates, and fee structures, thereby evaluating landlord
performance. Evaluation can track ‘bad actors’ in the
rental market. Public dissemination of information can
be standardized and reinforced by ensuring landlords
list their true operating name on leases. Public
dashboards can then cross-reference the operator to
the operator’s performance as a landlord. However,
while local governments can track this alone, a funded
regional or state system may be more appropriate
for management, administration, and completion of
information.
Performance-based rental programs can add teeth to
legislation. Performance-based evaluation could limit
new rental licenses or add progressive fees based on
benchmark landlord behaviors, while reducing fees
and regulatory burdens of proof for good actors. Fees
or penalties for non-compliance can be established.
Expand Tenant Protections
Corporate landlords target locations with lax tenant
protections. This is explicitly stated by all investment
firms when targeting where to invest. Central Indiana
is targeted because of its unlevel playing field that
overwhelmingly biases the interest of landlords.
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 114
Indiana ranks alongside Alabama, Arizona, Florida
and Georgia as sates with the most landlord favorable
laws. Some key protections could include:
• Right to Withhold Rent: The right to withhold
rent enables tenants to withhold rent in the case
of a needed repair that violates health and safety
codes. Indiana is one of five states nationwide
that do allow tenants to withdraw rent in some
form in the case of code violations. These laws
vary in form, but the majority employ language
that allow tenants to repair and deduce in the
case that a landlord has been notified of a direct
problem and has failed to respond. For example,
the state of Michigan allows tenants to pay into
an escrow account that the landlord cannot
access until repairs are addressed. Maximums
also exist to limit scale.
• Right to ‘Repair and deduct’: Indiana is one of 11
states with no such law, thereby lacking incentives
to promptly respond to code violations. Renters
who do not pay rent in protest may be evicted.
• Right to a Defense Attorney: Indianapolis
has the fifth highest eviction filing rate for
cities nationwide according to the Princeton
University’s Eviction Lab. Reporting on evictions
demonstrate that many tenants living in
substandard housing have no recourse to protest
substandard conditions, and in court lack proper
representation while landlord’s employ attorneys.
Right to a defense attorney is enshrined in many
city and state policies.
• Eviction Sealing: Eviction court records are
public, and a landlord can look up if an eviction
has been filed even if it was unsuccessful. HB1219
recently attempted to address this issue and
received bipartisan support.
‘First Look’ Program Sales and Rehabilitation Loans
Amidst the foreclosure crisis of the Great Depression,
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac installed a ‘First Look’
program that allowed future owner-occupants and
NGO’s a 20-day window to purchase foreclosed
homes without competition from investors. In place
since 2009, the Biden Housing Supply Plan increased
the window from 20 to 30 days in 2022. A similar
program for abandoned or tax sale homes could be
put in place to ensure homes don’t automatically get
bundled and sold to investors or speculators, as has
historically been the case.
The First Look program can be complemented by
municipal, county or state policy. In Michigan, limits are
placed on the number of properties a single investor
can purchase at once from a tax lien sale. Restrictions
based on a landlord’s historic record or scale of
operation could also help limit re-sales to investors.
These policies can help preclude issues like those
occurred in Marion County during the Great Recession
where large bundles of foreclosed properties were
sold to investors known to have problematic records
of renting sub-standard properties and ‘milked’
properties for rental income before abandoning the
property.
Sales to non-profits remains a desirable option, but
the lack of capital of NGO’s makes the purchase of
distressed or substandard homes difficult. This is
especially so with the costs of financing rehabilitation
often difficult to obtain or inaccessible. Increasing
access to capital and finance for rehabilitation of
distressed homes may help overcome hurdles non-
profits, individual homeowners, and smaller investors
may face in acquiring, rehabilitating, and renting/
selling/living in formerly foreclosed or distressed
properties. The advantages of increased access for
rehabilitation may also help owner-occupants and
demonstrably responsible investors take on more risk
in acquiring housing needing repairs – a niche that
corporate firms that operate at scale have been filling.
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 115
County Profiles
Typical neighborhoods pursued by the largest investors are first and second ring suburbs. These neighborhoods
are historically working and middle-class single-family communities where home ownership produced long-term
wealth for families. The spatial and acquisition strategies of corporate owners differs substantially from smaller
and mid-sized investors, with corporate investors focusing on suburban and exurban locations. Although corporate
SFR firms are new, they surpass smaller investors in market share in Hamilton, Hendricks, and Johnson Counties
where their activity is most robust. Corporate density is highest in neighborhoods where houses were built during
the 2000-2007 housing boom or in newly built communities where built-to-rent models are emerging. Within these
communities, corporate investors target homes that tend to rest in the 30-45th percentile of home values.
In these neighborhoods, income and home-ownership rates are generally on par with the metro average, with
slightly higher racial diversity. As greater headwinds exist for entry into home-ownership for younger generations
but as demand for ‘suburban’ life remains high, firms strategically chose neighborhoods where supply remain limited
relative to demand, allowing for strong year over year rental gains.
Smaller, mid-sized, and regional operators tend to be more opportunistic and targeted in their purchasing patterns.
Houses tend to be older and trend closer to county median assessed values. Likewise, investor’s are more concentrated
in historic suburbs within Marion County, and, likewise, more historic regional county centers.
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 116
MARION COUNTY
Typical neighborhoods pursued by the largest investors are first and second ring suburbs. These neighborhoods are
historically working and middle-class single-family communities where home ownership produced long-term wealth
for families. Income and home-ownership rates are generally on par with the metro average, with slightly higher
racial diversity. As greater headwinds exist for entry into home-ownership for younger generations but as demand
for ‘suburban’ life remains high, firms strategically chose neighborhoods where supply remain limited relative to
demand, allowing for strong year over year rental gains.
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 117
HAMILTON COUNTY
Hamilton County embodies the shifting strategy of corporate single family investment in targeting middle-income
single-family neighborhoods with homes built during the 2000-2007 housing boom. Within the broader region,
Hamilton County has the lowest percentage of investor owned homes, but a fast growing share of corporate owned
homes. This is particularly true in fast-growing but still largely middle-income places like Noblesville and Fishers
adjacent to higher income places such as Carmel. Policies have not shifted towards increasing the supply of a
diversity of housing types, thereby putting upward pricing pressure on single family rentals.
American Homes 4 Rent, First Key Homes, and Progress residential (3 of the top 5 largest single-family operators)
have the highest presence in the community.
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 118
BOONE COUNTY
Investment activity into Boone County is low across the board, with less than 1% of SFR owned by large corporate
investors and 5.66% of SFR owned by investors. Zionsville’s upper-market housing is unattractive to the rental
demographic targeted by corporate firms. However, single-family homes in developments constructed in the
2000-2008 boom remain the aim of investment activity. More than 75% of corporate owned homes in the county
were built prior to 2011. However, builders such as D.R. Horton are experimenting with build-to-rent models in new
developments such as Jackson Run South. Rather than act as owner-operators, national homebuilders see investor’s
as willing and qualified buyers of newly-built housing, especially in a more challenging macro-economic environment.
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 119
HENDRICKS COUNTY
Hendricks County emerged as an attractive location for corporate investors after the Great Recession. Like many
more exurban locations, smaller investors are historically less active, with new corporate investors emerging after
the Great Recession. Corporate investors targeted homes built between 2000-2008 that averaged 75% the cost
of a median home. Neighborhoods surrounding the airport fit the ideal profile for corporate acquisitions. American
Homes 4 Rent and First Key Homes are both disproportionately concentrated in Hendricks.
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 120
MORGAN COUNTY
With limited development during the suburban housing boom of the post-2000 era, Morgan County is not a major
center for corporate housing investment. The housing stock – often significantly older, and the lack of housing density
make corporate acquisition more risky. Local knowledge predominates, with large regional investors and smaller
investors more active in the SFR market.
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 121
JOHNSON COUNTY
Johnson County is a regional hotbed of corporate and investor activity, second in proportion of corporate SFR’s
to Marion County. This is particularly true in housing developments surrounding Whiteland and Greenwood where
7-9% of all single family homes let alone rentals are owned by a corporate investor. The density corresponds with
higher rates of foreclosure and the persistent duration of foreclosed properties following the Great Recession,
enabling large firms to acquire properties at below market rates. The SFR rental market here is attractively priced
for working-class, median income families desiring suburban homes and access to better school districts.
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 122
SHELBY COUNTY
Shelbyville – the main city in Shelby County – has high rates of both corporate and investor ownership. Approximately
7.2% of all single family properties and 43% of SFR are owned by a large investor. This is particularly true in the newer
segments of town southeast of downtown where newer suburban homes are targeted.
Regional investors such as Reed Real Estate are the most active and highly concentrated in the community. Reed Real
Estate, however, owns older homes in historic Shelbyville, with 1930 the median year built of Reed-owned parcels.
The large national players including American Homes 4 Rent and First Key are active in the 2000-2008 built homes
(median year built is 2005).
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 123
HANCOCK COUNTY
Extending east, the corporate and investor share of housing in Hancock County is situated in the suburban
neighborhoods surrounding older, historic Greenfield where Build-To-Rent models in new suburban tracts built by
D.R. Horton are emerging (for example, Sandalwood) and subdivisions built between 2000-2008 are common. SFR
acquired by larger corporate firms have a median year built of 2002, and tend to be in the lower to middle price
range (30-45% of the median assessed value).
The largest investors are American Homes 4 Rent, Progress, and Tricon.
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 124
Corporate Profiles: Top 5
Corporate investors – or those who own 25 or more properties in the region – refer to a broad array of actors
including national private equity giants, regional housing investors, and smaller upstarts. They are all active in the
Indianapolis market, making Indianapolis one of the few non-Sunbelt Cities to experience persistent corporate
investment at scale.
The largest investors by properties owned are the private equity firms. Simple patterns emerge here across their
investment trajectories. Large private equity firms target:
• Newer Homes where property maintenance adds less overhead.
• Lower mid-tier suburban Homes in desirable middle income single family neighborhoods: Homes often desired
by first-time home buyers.
• Some degree of spatial concentration to lower property maintenance costs.
Despite owning ‘newer’ property stock, many of the largest firms active in the 2010’s have high rates of code
violations, aggressively pursue returns through raising rents, and have come under fire for adding burdensome fees
on top of rents. As large financial vehicles, all experience enormous pressure to maximize returns on assets that may
lead to different outcomes than smaller landlords.
Diversification in the industry also exists. Mid-size local and regional investors – for example VineBrook, SLB
Investments, or SFR – pursue a strategy based on acquiring and marketing ‘affordable’ or ‘workforce’ rentals. These
firms pursue houses in more disinvested pockets of the city, including older, less expensive homes – many of which
are in disrepair. Strategies here often involve some minimal repair and ‘profit milking’ approaches that can further
disinvestment, which we explore in the ‘Code Violations’ segment.
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 125
FIRSTKEY HOMES, LLC
Parent Company: Cerberus Capital Management, a global private equity firm founded in 1992 and based in New
York City. The firm is private, making disclosure of assets difficult to calculate.
Company Location: FirstKey Homes is the property management firm created and owned by Cerberus to manage
their single family housing assets, and is located in Marietta Georgia. They operate in 25 US markets.
Company Size: 50,000+ homes, with strong concentration in Sunbelt markets.
Company Strategy: An early mover in the single-family rental space, FirstKey Homes purchases single family homes
in middle-income first ring suburbs (southwestern and eastern Marion County) and new ex-urban communities in
Hamilton, Boone, Hendricks and Johnson. It prioritizes newer homes with less property damage risk.
It’s reputation as a landlord is similar to other large corporate investors. It receives reports of unresponsive
management, higher levels of code violations, hidden and arbitrary fees while applying and leasing homes, and
inflated use of evictions or threats of evictions compared to smaller investors. Of the large private equity firms,
FirstKey Homes has the highest incidence rate of code violations Marion County, with 12.9 code violations per 100
properties.
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 126
First Key Homes, LLC Dashboard:
• Total Number of Properties: 3,362
• Median Assessed Value: $167,550
• Median Year Built of Homes Owned: 1999
• Mean Acquisition Year: 2018
• Marion County Code Violations per Property: 12.9 code violations per 100 properties.
First Key Homes: Distribution of Assessed Value
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 127
AMERICAN HOMES 4 RENT, LLC
Company Location: Formed in 2007, incorporation in Maryland in 2018 as a REIT. It is based in Las Vegas, Nevada,
and is owned by Wayne Hughes, the founder of Public Storage.
Company Size: 23,417 homes in 18 states
Company Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
Company Size: 59,902 properties nationwide. Indianapolis is its 7th largest market.
Company Strategy: Acquired homes purchased by BlackRock Financial, a large private equity firm who purchased bulk
foreclosed properties en masse during the Great Recession. The firm’s strategy targeted newer homes in suburban
neighborhoods. They have also pioneered the AMH Development Program, a ‘built-for-rental’ development arm.
Built-for-rent can spatially consolidate operations, reducing operation costs. In Indianapolis, they have higher
purchases in areas on the periphery of high-income communities outside the metro core.
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 128
American Homes 4 Rent, LLC Dashboard:
• Total Number of Properties: 2,846
• Median Assessed Value: $171,000
• Average Year Purchased: 2014
• Median Year Built: 2002
• Average ‘realized rent’ per property: $1,753
• Average Occupancy: 96.5%
• Evictions per Property:
• Marion County Code Violations per Property: 6.5 code violations per 100 properties
American Homes 4 Rent, LLC : Distribution of Assessed Value
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 129
PROGRESS RESIDENTIAL, LLC
Company Location: Scottsdale, Arizona. Owned by Pretium Partners, a private equity firm.
Company Size: The largest SFR firm in the US, Progress Residential owns north of 95,000 homes, 2,396 of which are
in Indianapolis.
Company Strategy: The company strategy mirrors other large corporate single-family investors, with a larger
bias for newer construction in middle-income suburbs in the counties surrounding Marion. Neighborhoods
surrounding the airport and northeastern Indianapolis are major targets. Progress Residential’s main strategy is
neatly summarized by its CEO: “We want to buy a 2,000 square foot house built in the 21st century, preferably in a
homeowners association, with a two car garage, a front and backyard, not on the corner.” Like other firms, it is an
aggressive profit-maximizer and leans heavily on evictions, causing it to come under investigation in Minneapolis
where it is being sued for fraudulent and deceptive business practices, in national hearings for using evictions and
other aggressive tactics to remove tenants.
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 130
Progress Residential, LLC Dashboard:
• Total Number of Properties: 2,396
• Median Assessed Value: $172,500
• Median Year Built: 2001
• Mean Acquisition Year: 2019
• Evictions per Property:
• Marion County Code Violations per Property: 1.9 code violations per 100 properties
Progress Residential: Distribution of Assessed Value
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 131
VINEBROOK HOMES, LLC
Company Location: Formed in 2007, incorporation in Maryland in 2018 as a REIT, based in Texas.
Company Size: 23,417 homes in 18 states
Company Strategy: Acquires foreclosed homes, lower-value homes than competitors, and older homes often
purchased in bulk from other investors. More concentrated in neighborhoods with racial and ethnic minority
households and lower median incomes than other top corporate firms. Strong reputation for high rates of eviction
and code violations (forthcoming). Through ‘renovating’ homes, the company increased rent growth. The average
rent for a single family home in Indianapolis in 2023: 3Q is $1,234 relative to $1,063 in 2021: 3Q, averaging 8% growth
per year.
Notes: Sued by the city of Cincinnati, twice, for negligence in property management and violation of an agreement
in relation to maintenance failure. Poor reputation in Milwaukee, Indianapolis, and Cleveland where journalists have
conducted analyses on negligent management and concentration of assets in neighborhoods. Claims to be the
“Largest provider of workforce housing (defined as housing costing less than $1,400 a month) in the country” among
SFR firms
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 132
Vinebrook Homes, LLC Dashboard:
• Total Number of Properties: 1,488
• Average Rent: $1,162 ((SEC 2022 Annual Report)
• Occupancy: 93.5% (SEC 2022 Annual Report)
• Median Assessed Value: $97,100
• Mean Year Built of Properties Owned: 1964
• Evictions per Property: forthcoming
• Marion County Code Violations per Property: 17 violations per 100 homes.
VineBrook Homes: Distribution of Assessed Value
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 133
TRICON RESIDENTIAL, LLC
Company Location: Incorporated in Toronto, Canada, Tricon Residential is a private equity firm with $13.1 billion
invested in 37,024 single family rental homes and multi-family rentals. It is a publicly traded firm.
Company Size: 38,000 homes in the US Sunbelt and multi-family rental homes in Canada.
Company Strategy: Tricon pursues a similar acquisition strategy to other large corporate investors, pursuing single-
family homes in middle-income neighborhoods in first ring suburbs as well as newer exurbs where they pursue build-
to-rent properties. The company targets middle income tenants earning between $70,000-110,000 per year that
promise longer-term renting capacities. According to company reports, Tricon leads the large SFR industry with a
turnover rate of just 15% per year on its homes. Tricon’s pricing model moderates rental increases for renewals, (6.8%
per year) but aggressively increases rents upon turnover (11.5%): this model still enabled the firm to increase rents
by 9.4% year over year from 2021-2022. It’s model of reducing turnover corresponds to its record of discriminatory
practices in renting to households on government assistance in Charlotte, North Carolina.
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 134
Tricon Residential, LLC Dashboard:
• Total Number of Properties: 1,615 properties
• Median Assessed Value: $160,500
• Median Year Built of Properties Owned: 2002
• Mean Acquisition Year: 2020
• Evictions per Property:
• Marion County Code Violations per Property: 1 per 100 properties.
Tricon Residential: Distribution of Assessed Value
135
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY | INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
135
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY | INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
HOUSING
TOOLKIT AND
NEXT STEPS
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 136
Overview
PROJECT VISION AND GOALS
The toolkit is organized around the vision and goals
established through the course of the project. These
statements are informed by the process’s extensive
stakeholder engagement, numerous stages of
research and analysis, and steering committee
feedback.
Vision statement:
“The Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning
Organization’s Central Indiana Housing Study seeks to
foster communication and support the development
of a more equitable, accessible, attainable, and
connected housing supply for current and future
residents of the Central Indiana region. ”
Goals:
1. Establish a shared understanding of the history
and current state of housing in Central Indiana.
2. Introduce a regional housing strategy that
connects communities and promotes equity.
3. Provide context and guidance for the public and
government leaders to inform public decision-
making on housing issues and policy.
4. Support collaboration and policy change at the
local and regional levels in promoting the vision.
5. Support the creation of the full continuum of
housing types and attainability across the region.
ONE TOOLKIT, TWO USER GROUPS
Just as there is no single contributor to the rising cost
of housing, neither is there a single policy that will serve
as a solution. The Housing Toolkit provides specific
strategies organized around the vision and goals
established through the course of the project. The
strategies and recommendations have two targeted
user groups serving as the lead, the IMPO itself and
its member communities consisting of municipalities.
However, other entities such as developers, non-
profits, and other organizations operating in the
housing space also have a role to play.
In order to combat rising unaffordability the CIHS offers
the following goal to municipal staff and leadership:
• Support the creation of the full continuum
of housing types and attainability across the
region.
Each community within Central Indiana is ultimately
in control of which strategies, if any, they decide
to employ as they work towards achieving their local
housing goals. However, providing more housing
in general is necessary in order to alleviate rising
unaffordability – as supply rises the upward pressure
on housing prices will also ease. The housing production
need forecast completed for the CIHS estimates that an
additional 42,000 housing units need to be produced
over the next five years, or roughly 8,400 per year.
Additionally, a greater variety of housing that meets
the preferences and price points of households needs
to be produced. Different strategies for increasing
housing vary from market-type incentives such as
offering property tax abatement for developers to
updating public policy documents such as local zoning
to allow for a greater amount and type of housing to
be developed.
As communities investigate which options are best
suited to them, the IMPO will continue to provide
support and information to members. Strategies
serving the following goals are assigned to the IMPO:
• Establish a shared understanding of the history
and current state of housing in Central Indiana.
• Introduce a regional housing strategy that
connects communities and promotes equity.
• Provide context and guidance for the public and
government leaders to inform public decision-
making on housing issues and policy.
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 137
• Support collaboration and policy change at the
local and regional levels in promoting the vision.
These goals, and the specific strategies listed under
each, fall under the informational and convening work
the IMPO has historically provided as an organization.
By expanding on the information provided in the
CIHS and bringing together stakeholders to work on
these issues collectively the IMPO hopes to continue
advancing housing issues.
Additionally, while the IMPO offers these strategies for
communities to consider in case helpful, they are by
no means mandated. Communities should make their
own decisions about the best path toward achieving
local housing goals.
STRATEGY CATEGORIES AND VARIABLES
The toolkit matrix classifies strategies across several
categories to summarize key features of each and
help users compare between them. These categories
and their constituent variables include:
Type: What form does the strategy take?
• Communication: Informing the regional housing
discourse by providing data and education to
stakeholders and the community about housing
needs, solutions, market dynamics, and related
topics.
• Financing: Providing direct or indirect investment
or financing.
• Regulation: Changing how government
establishes policies and interfaces with builders.
• Community: Empowering nonprofits and
community organizations to lead solutions.
Scale: What is the strategy’s geographic scope?
• State/region: Across the metro area or
statewide
• County: Across a county and its constituent
municipalities and unincorporated areas
• Municipality: Limited to a single city or town
• Neighborhood: Focused on a district within a
municipality
• Site: Focused on a single project site
Timeframe: On what timescale is the strategy
implemented?
• Short-term: Within a year
• Mid-term: Within 3-5 years
• Long-term: More than 5 years
• Ongoing: Recurring indefinitely once
established
Cost: What is the order of magnitude cost associated
with implementing the strategy?
• Low: Less than $100k (in many cases, cost
primarily limited to staff time)
• Moderate: Between $100k and $1M
• High: Above $1M
Leader: What type of organization should lead the
strategy’s development and implementation?
• State: A state agency or legislative body
• MPO: The IMPO
• County: A county agency or governing body
• Municipality: A city or town board, agency,
department, or governing body
IMPO role: What is the IMPO’s role in developing and
deploying the strategy?
• Inform: Providing data, guidance, or technical
assistance.
• Convene: Organizing meetings, events, discourse,
and collaborations.
• Plan: Setting policy goals and strategies.
• Fund: Investing in projects and programs.
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 138
Toolkit Strategies: Establish a shared understanding of the
history and current state of housing in Central Indiana
MAINTAIN AND UPDATE HOUSING PLAN
Update the housing plan document or produce
periodic supplements reflecting the latest data, toolkit
strategies, and technical assistance resource offerings.
Given the dynamic nature of housing markets and the
high rate of growth and change across the Central
Indiana region, this plan’s findings will need periodic
updates to keep current with the latest conditions
and community needs. Updates could take the
form of revisions to the plan itself or supplemental
attachments.
In addition to refreshing the data, IMPO can update
toolkit strategies and other components of the plan as
applicable, offering the regional audience the latest
information, ideas, and resources available at the
time. Upon the release of each update, IMPO could
also conduct a round of outreach and engagement,
including reviewing new material with member
communities and convening public conversations
about important trends highlighted in the work.
CREATE AND MAINTAIN ONLINE
DASHBOARD
Establish and regularly update an online dashboard
featuring indicators and findings from the housing
plan and the data behind it.
As an additional dimension of the housing plan, IMPO
could build an online dashboard offering interactive
review of and engagement with the housing study’s
data, findings, and resources. Plan updates could
also be translated onto the dashboard. In addition
to visualizing the regional study’s databases, the
dashboard could include real-time indicators of
housing market conditions, such as recent ownership
and rental pricing data. Other features could include
live feeds of regional housing news and research,
calendars highlighting housing-related events and
programming, and other current information and
news.
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 139
COMMISSION FOLLOW-UP STUDIES
Commission follow-up studies on critical housing issues
that impact housing attainability and access at local
and regional levels.
As this plan describes in sections such as the
Contributing Factors report, the housing market is
extremely complex and dynamic and there is great
value to building broad awareness and understanding
of the key forces driving change and contributing to
housing attainability challenges across the region.
The IMPO can periodically release focused studies
that address key housing issues and the forces
that influence them to keep community residents,
stakeholders, leaders, and policymakers informed
and engaged with existing and emerging challenges
and opportunities that previously may have gone
unnoticed and unaddressed. For example, IMPO
has commissioned a review of the scope of investor-
owned single-family housing and its relationship to
local affordability. There are numerous other topics
that are not well understood but which the community
would have an interest in learning about and which
deserve more policy and planning attention in general.
PROVIDE REGIONAL CONTEXT
Provide regional context as resource for local planning
through resource sharing and active collaboration.
As part of its new role as a leader in regional housing
policy discussions, the IMPO could operate as a
clearinghouse of data, studies, and resources that
provide the overall regional context to compliment
municipal planning and policy-making. Rather than
attempt to dictate how municipalities should manage
housing issues and opportunities, the IMPO could
contribute insight on the broader trends and market
forces active across the region and help municipal
decision-makers incorporate this perspective into
their local work.
This strategy could include activities such as:
• Providing resources and information to
municipalities that are considering or launching
local housing studies.
• Distributing ongoing regional housing research,
data, insights, and policy tool concepts.
• Promoting regional awareness about current
trends, opportunities, and challenges in the
housing market along with ideas about how to
address them.
• Executing on other strategies in this plan that
contribute to the goal of broader contextual
understanding of housing at the regional level
and how it relates to local concerns.
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 140
SET HOUSING GOALS
Work with municipalities and other government
officials to set housing production targets at regional
and county levels that reflect this plan’s vision and
goals.
As a next step after this study is complete, the
IMPO could work with its member communities and
stakeholder partners to develop regional housing
goals. These goals might consist of quantified
production targets and/or attainability rates to work
toward.
These housing goals would offer a regional context
that could inform how municipalities calibrate internal
targets. The IMPO would offer the goals as guidance
to inform local planning, not mandated quotas that
must be adhered to.
Over time, the IMPO could convene its member and
stakeholder networks to review progress toward
regional housing goals and consider updates in light of
how markets and attainability may have shifted since
initial marks were set.
Toolkit strategy: Introduce a regional housing study that
connects communities and promotes equity.
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 141
Toolkit strategy: Provide context and guidance for public
and government leaders to inform public decision-making on
housing issues and policy.
HOUSING ELEMENT IN COMPREHENSIVE
PLANS
Recommend municipalities include a housing element
in comprehensive plans and updates.
The comprehensive plan offers one of the most
effective ways to keep residents, stakeholders, and local
policymakers up-to-date on a variety of conditions,
challenges, and opportunities in their communities.
In addition, the planning process provides a forum to
share ideas and set priorities around a wide range of
topics.
IMany municipalities in Central Indiana do not address
housing in detail in their comprehensive plans but
all should be encouraged to do so. When writing its
housing element, a municipality could inventory and
characterize their housing stock and try to gauge
current levels of cost burden across income levels.
The element’s action items could focus on strategies
to close attainability gaps and add housing types
that reflect the way the municipality wants to grow
and adapt in light of residents’ evolving needs and
expected demand from new households.
ENHANCE POLICYMAKER AWARENESS OF
HOUSING ISSUES
Enhance awareness of housing challenges and
opportunities with ongoing communication and
information sharing.
In addition to spreading awareness and understanding
of housing issues in the region, the IMPO is well
positioned to help inform policymakers on these topics.
It is essential that decision makers are up to date on the
latest housing conditions and trends and are fluent in
the current housing policy discourse within the region.
The IMPO can build this awareness and understanding
through several channels, including:
• Distributing studies, reports, and updates to
policymakers.
• Developing direct relationships with policymakers
and offering to serve as an impartial but well-
informed advisor when housing regulations and
bills are under debate.
• Help network between stakeholders and
policymakers across the region to foster direct
dialogues between multiple perspectives around
key housing issues.
• Supporting citizen planner training to build
capacity at staff and other levels locally and
regionally.
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 142
Toolkit strategies: Support collaboration and policy change
at the local and regional levels in promoting the vision.
PROVIDE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
Support municipalities with technical assistance and
resources to help them overcome challenges and
capture opportunities to promote housing attainability.
As an extension of its regional planning efforts, the
IMPO could offer technical assistance to help member
communities address housing issues and opportunities
locally. These services could range from informal
consultation to more involved analysis, planning, and
advising.
The IMPO could structure the technical assistance
program around one or both of the following
approaches:
• Offer on-demand support to communities and
scope the work to meet each place’s unique
needs.
• Develop standardized assistance modules
focused on specific housing topics and tasks and
invite communities to enroll in those that appeal
to them.
Technical assistance would consist of IMPO staff
time providing information to and supporting each
engaged community.
FOSTER COLLABORATION AND
DIALOGUE
Leveraging its role as convener for the regional
housing study and discourse, the IMPO could produce
public events, organize leadership summits, and
network stakeholders.
Public events could include standalone programs as
well as sessions related to specific studies and research
the IMPO is engaged with at the time. Some events
may be designed for broader public consumption with
general housing topics while others target planners,
policymakers, or other stakeholders with more
specialized topics and presentations.
Leadership summits could include open-ended
formats where participants drive the discussion
together and rely on each other for ideas, as well as
more directed formats where the IMPO directs the
conversation and structures collaboration activities
more proactively. Summit topics could include
recurring modules around housing needs assessment
and policy development as well as specialized sessions
focused on emerging trends and new areas of concern
among member communities.
Networking. Through its emerging role as a convener
of regional housing discourse, the IMPO is well
positioned to connect communities and stakeholders
across Central Indiana and foster a network of
collaboration and resource sharing.
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 143
Toolkit strategies: Support the creation of the full continuum
of housing types and attainability across the region.
PROPERTY TAX ABATEMENT FOR
DEVELOPERS
Offering property tax abatements for affordable
housing developments.
Jurisdictions offer property tax incentives to
developers, building owners, and owner occupants
who create or preserve affordable housing. Property
tax abatements directly reduce the amount of taxes
owed for a specified period and can be offered
as an incentive to encourage the construction or
rehabilitation of buildings that include a share of or all
affordable units. Exemptions are commonly offered to
encourage rental property owners to make upgrades
that improve the condition of lower lower-cost units.
The increased value resulting from the upgrades is
excluded from property tax calculations for a defined
period.
The abatement of property taxes in Indiana is
governed by IC 6-1.1-12.1 and other state statutes –
there are some limitations, and 100% abatements are
not permitted by state law.
DEDICATING PUBLIC LAND FOR HOUSING
Dedicating publicly owned land that is suitable and
appropriately sited for new housing.
Especially in areas with relatively high land costs
and/or few development sites available, offering
publicly owned land for affordable housing
development creates an opportunity to increase
the affordable housing supply where market forces
otherwise challenge such production. In this model,
municipalities offer vacant, underutilized, or otherwise
surplus property to developers who agree to build all
affordable or mixed-income housing on the site. The
municipality may reduce the price of the land (or grant
it at no cost) to close the financing gap a conventional
affordable housing development would otherwise face
locally.
Because land costs constitute between 10-20% of a
typical multifamily housing development, granting
the land at a reduced cost – or at no cost – effectively
represents a significant subsidy that can allow
the developer to add a substantial affordability
component while preserving a housing development
project’s feasibility.
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 144
HOUSING BOND FUNDS
Establishing bond funds to help finance affordable
housing.
Local funding programs are often used to close the
gap in financing for housing developments that reflect
community goals but are not otherwise financially
feasible for developers to build.
These programs can be funded by bonds, multi-
jurisdiction trust funds, and/or general revenue funds.
Fund managers can establish criteria for funding
awards, such as levels of affordability and tenure. The
funds can also be used to foster nonprofit housing.
Tax Increment Financing
Enabling Tax Increment Financing (TIF) for new
housing development.
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) is an effective tool for
offsetting some of the costs of development, sitework,
and infrastructure to help improve a project’s financial
feasibility.
In the realm of multifamily and mixed-use projects,
it can be used to fill financing gaps and enable
development of units the community may desire
but which do not otherwise “pencil” to produce. In
many cases, communities reserve TIF for housing
development that includes affordable or workforce
units, offering the financing support as compensation
for the developer accepting a less profitable
development.
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 145
HOME REPAIR PROGRAM
Establishing a program to support home maintenance
and energy efficiency upgrades for income-qualified
households.
Often, the most capital-efficient way to promote
housing affordability is to help lower-income people
maintain their existing housing arrangement and
mitigate displacement pressure. Necessary home
repair and renovation projects have the potential to
strain household finances and could lead to excessive
debt burden if financed conventionally or housing and
quality of life deterioration if deferred altogether.
There are several federal and state programs that
support certain types of home improvement, such
as energy efficiency upgrades. Complementary
municipal and other local programs can support the
wide variety of improvements otherwise not covered
by these larger programs, such as routine plumbing,
electrical, HVAC, or roofing/envelope projects.
These programs are often structured as low- or no-
interest loans offered to qualifying homeowners and
landlords. In many cases, the typical applicant needs
less than $20k in assistance to complete significant
projects that can effectively extend a low-income
resident’s tenure in their current home for years.
HOME ACCESSIBILITY RETROFITS
Establishing a program to support aging-in-place with
accessibility retrofits and other light modifications.
Helping seniors age in place in their homes promotes
affordability and quality of life by delaying the need
to move to expensive assisted living facilities and
maintaining local social and community ties. In many
cases, a housing unit can be made significantly more
accessible for a senior occupant with just a few
strategic and low low-cost retrofits, extending their
ability to live there for several more years. These
include modifications such as handrails along front
steps, grab bars in the bathroom, widened doorways,
interior and exterior ramps, and upgraded door and
kitchen hardware.
Retrofit projects could be administered numerous
ways, from seasonal volunteer drives to more
formalized home assessment and small grant
programs managed by municipal, healthcare, or non
-profit entities.
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 146
PROPERTY TAX ABATEMENT FOR
RESIDENTS
Providing property tax relief for income-qualified
homeowners to mitigate cost burden and prevent
displacement.
Low- or fixed-income homeowners can experience
displacement pressure from a property tax burden
that grows faster than their ability to pay, such as
when driven by quickly rising local property values.
Municipalities can mitigate this threat to homeowner
stability by linking tax liability to household income.
While all homeowners would continue to pay taxes,
those at lower incomes could qualify for lower payment
obligations that is capped at a certain percentage of
their income. For example, some communities limit the
tax payment to no more than 9 or 10% of a household’s
income (ex. Maryland and Boston, MA). In some cases,
the state reimburses municipalities for potential tax
revenue forgone to the program (ex. Connecticut).
FORECLOSURE PREVENTION PROGRAM
Establishing a program to provide education, technical
assistance, and financing options that help financially
struggling homeowners avoid foreclosure.
Foreclosures can create devastating financial and
social consequences for households – and geographic
concentrations of foreclosure can destabilize
neighborhoods and lead to blight and other economic
and community issues. In many cases, a household’s
foreclosure is triggered by a short-term challenge that
could be overcome with modest support at the right
time. Foreclosure prevention programs can draw on
a variety of financing and service strategies to help
the homeowner overcome these challenges and avoid
losing their home.
For example, some programs offer legal and financial
counseling to help homeowners keep their mortgages
through renegotiation or creative budgeting. No-
interest loans or grants help struggling homeowners
make mortgage and tax payments during periods
of financial hardship. In Boston, Blue Hub Capital will
purchase the property from a homeowner before they
reach foreclosure and then sell it back to them at a
more manageable price and interest rate.
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 147
ENABLING ADUS BY RIGHT IN ZONING
Modifying local zoning to allow Accessory Dwelling
Units (ADUs) by right.
An accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is a smaller,
independent residential dwelling unit located on the
same lot as a stand stand-alone (i.e., detached) single
single-family home. ADUs go by many different names
throughout the U.S., including accessory apartments,
secondary suites, and granny flats. ADUs can be
converted portions of existing homes (i.e., internal
ADUs), additions to new or existing homes (i.e.,
attached ADUs), or new stand stand-alone accessory
structures or converted portions of existing stand
stand-alone accessory structures (i.e., detached
ADUs).
Many cities and counties permit ADUs by right,
subject to certain standards. Common provisions
include dimensional and design standards to ensure
neighborhood compatibility. Other relatively common
provisions include minimum lot sizes and limits on the
number of occupants or bedrooms. While some codes
also include occupancy restrictions that stipulate that
ADUs can only house family members or domestic
employees, this type of restriction can severely limit
the potential for ADUs to address a shortage of rental
housing.
COMMUNITY LAND TRUSTS
Establishing community land trusts that incorporate
attainable housing development.
Typically managed by a community-based nonprofit,
land trusts effectively remove the cost of land from a
housing unit’s overall development cost. The controlling
entity absorbs the cost of the land and passes only
the cost of construction to eventual buyers or renters.
Because land often constitutes around 25% of a new
housing unit’s cost, this effectively results in a 25%
discount for the future owner or tenant, significantly
lowering the barrier to entry and making the unit
attainable to households with lower incomes than the
typical market process would allow.
Because the cost of land is permanently excluded
from the pro forma, this model readily enables the
affordability period to extend in perpetuity (rather
than the 10- to 30-year timeframes other affordable
development models are limited by).
Due to the decentralized nature of CLTs, communities
can take matters into their own hands to preserve
affordability and stability, with or without support
from various levels of government.
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 148
LAND BANKS
Establishing land banks that reserve property for
attainable housing development.
Land banks are public authorities or non-profit
organizations created to acquire, hold, manage, and
sometimes redevelop property in order to return these
properties to productive use to meet community goals,
such as increasing affordable housing or stabilizing
property values.
Land banks can play a number of roles depending on a
community’s development goals, including assembling
parcels of tax-delinquent or abandoned properties for
redevelopment and acquiring and holding strategically
valuable properties until the community can develop
them as affordable housing.
In Cincinnati, development authority leaders recently
purchased 194 occupied single-family units through
a land bank-like mechanism to prevent corporate
investors from acquiring the properties and to
maintain their natural affordability.
PAYMENT IN LIEU OF TAXES
Allowing payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) to help finance
affordable and mixed-income housing development.
Payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) is an arrangement
between the municipality and the developer whereby
the developer provides an up-front lump sum payment
in exchange for reduced long-term property tax
liability. Often, the payment amounts to less than the
municipality would have received in actual property
taxes for the improved property but, by improving
the project’s financial feasibility, it can represent
necessary means to bridge financing gaps and help
make the project possible.
Additionally or alternatively, a PILOT agreement could
be offered in exchange for the developer including
some or more affordable units than may be planned
or required.
CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 149
DESIGN STANDARDS UPDATES
Updating architectural design standards that reduce
built-in housing costs.
Architectural design standards are used by many
municipalities to help ensure new housing development
is built to a high level of quality. These standards are
often motivated by a desire to maintain attractive
community aesthetics and the durable property values
that follow.
In practice, these standards sometimes include
requirements that do not materially impact aesthetic
quality but contribute to higher constructions costs
and, as a result, reduced housing attainability.
Communities could audit their design standards
to understand the relationship between different
requirements and their construction cost implications.
Then, communities may choose to revise the standards
to focus on elements that maintain desirable
aesthetics without unintentionally increasing costs
disproportionately.
ZONING FOR NEW HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT
Updating zoning to accommodate new housing
development in appropriate locations.
In many cases, responding to local housing need and
market opportunity involves accommodating new
building typologies and higher development densities.
Once a community has established the housing types
and densities it is interested in fostering, zoning should
be reviewed to gauge if changes are needed to allow
the new development.
Zoning updates may involve modifying use and/or
dimensional tables to reflect the density, height, bulk,
and functional characteristics of the development
typologies desired by the community. Corresponding
zoning updates may include modifying certain zoning
districts to allow the new development typologies and/
or introducing overlay districts covering the areas this
development is desired.
GOAL STRATEGY DESCRIPTION TYPE SCALE TIMEFRAME COST LEADER IMPO ROLE NEXT STEP
ESTABLISH A SHARED
UNDERSTANDING OF THE
HISTORY AND CURRENT
STATE OF HOUSING IN
CENTRAL INDIANA
Maintain and update housing plan Update the housing plan document or produce periodic supplements reflecting the
latest data, toolkit strategies, and technical assistance resource offerings.Communication Regional Ongoing Low MPO Plan and
inform Refresh analyses every 2-4 years
Maintain online dashboard Establish and regularly update an online dashboard featuring indicators and
findings from the housing plan and the data behind it.Communication Regional Ongoing Low MPO Inform Build out initial dashboard website.
Commission follow-up studies Commission follow-up studies on critical housing issues that impact housing attainability
and access at local and regional levels.Communication Regional Ongoing Low MPO Inform Identify the next issue for a deeper dive study.
Provide regional context Provide regional context as resource for local planning through resource sharing and active
collaboration. Communication Regional Ongoing Low MPO Inform Distribute housing plan and findings to regional stakeholders.
INTRODUCE A REGIONAL
HOUSING STRATEGY THAT
CONNECTS COMMUNITIES
AND PROMOTES EQUITY
Set housing goals Work with municipalities to set housing production targets at regional and county
levels that reflect this plan’s vision and goals.Communication Regional Ongoing Low MPO Plan Distribute housing plan and findings to regional stakeholders.
EDUCATE THE PUBLIC AND
GOVERNMENT LEADERS TO
INFORM PUBLIC DECISION-
MAKING ON HOUSING
ISSUES AND POLICY.
Housing element in comprehensive
plans
Recommend municipalities include a housing element in comprehensive plans and
updates.Regulation Any Long-term Low MPO or
state Plan Communicate the benefits of expanded housing consideration in
comprehensive plans and encourage municipalities to include them.
Enhance policymaker awareness of
housing issues
Enhance awareness of housing challenges and opportunities with ongoing
communication and information sharing, such as regularly providing meetings,
whitepapers, networking opportunities, etc.
Communication Any Ongoing Low Any Convene Develop a communications plan to increase contact and information-
sharing with policymakers at local and state levels.
SUPPORT COLLABORATION
AND POLICY CHANGE
AT THE LOCAL AND
REGIONALLEVELS IN
PROMOTING THE VISION.
Provide technical assistance Support municipalities with technical assistance and resources to help them
overcome challenges and capture opportunites to promote housing attainability.Communication Regional Ongoing Low to
moderate MPO Inform Develop and distribute a “menu” of technical assistance resources and
make regular contact with member communities.
Organize stakeholder summits Organize collaboration summits with local stakeholders and municipalities to
catalyze organizational partnerships and resources-sharing.Communication Regional Ongoing Low MPO Convene Organize a pilot summit at the county or regional scale.
Network local and regional
stakeholders
Provide leadership in connecting local and regional stakeholders to create a more
robust and networked housing ecosystem of partnerships and collaboration.Communication Regional Ongoing Low MPO Convene Compile a contact list of the region’s stakeholders and reach out to those
not already in regular contact with IMPO.
SUPPORT THE
CREATION OF THE
FULL CONTINUUM
OF HOUSING TYPES
AND ATTAINABILITY
ACROSS THE REGION.
Property tax abatement for
developers Offering property tax abatement or exemptions for affordable housing developments.Financing Municipal Mid-term Moderate Municipality Plan Interview local developers and stakeholders to assess current
financing gaps.
Dedicate public land for housing Dedicating publicly owned land that is suitable and appropriately sited for new housing Regulation Municipal Short-term Moderate Municipality Plan Inventory underutilized publicly owned land and assess suitability for
housing.
Housing bond funds Establishing bond funds to help finance affordable housing Financing Municipal Mid-term High Municipality Plan Interview local developers and stakeholders to assess current
financing gaps.
Tax Increment Financing Enabling Tax Increment Financing (TIF) for new housing development Financing Municipal Mid-term Moderate Municipality Plan Interview local developers and stakeholders to assess current
financing gaps.
Home repair program Establishing a program to support home maintenance and energy efficiency
upgrades for income-qualified households Financing Any Short-term Low to High Municipality Plan Identify potential partners and develop a small pilot to test local
receptivity and administrative capacity to implement.
Home accessibility retrofits Establishing a program to support aging-in-place with accessibility retrofits and
other light modifications Financing Any Short-term Low to High Municipality Plan Identify potential partners and develop a small pilot to test local
receptivity and administrative capacity to implement.
Property tax abatement for
residents
Providing property tax relief for income-qualified homeowners to mitigate cost
burden and prevent displacement Financing Municipal Short-term Moderate Municipality Plan Assess the relationship between property tax increases and risk of
displacement within communities.
Foreclosure prevention program Establishing a program to provide education, technical assistance, and financing
options that help financially struggling homeowners avoid foreclosure.Regulation Municipal Short-term Moderate Municipality Plan Identify potential partners and develop a small pilot to test local
receptivity and administrative capacity to implement.
Enabling ADUs by right in zoning Modifing local zoning to allow Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) by right Regulation Municipal Mid-term Low Municipality Plan Determine potential attainability benefits of ADUs and which zones
they might be most suitable.
Tenant notification requirement Requiring landlords to provide 90-day notices to tenants when property changes
hands, especially if lease terms are likely to change.Regulation Municipal
or state Short-term Low Municipal or
state Plan Interview local residents and advocacy groups to articulate the
problem and calibrate a potential requirement.
Community land trusts Establishing community land trusts that incorporate attainable housing development Community Municipal Long-term High Non-profit Plan Identify potential partners and suitable locations within the
community.
Land banks Establishing land banks that reserve property for attainable housing development Community Any Mid-term High Municipality Plan Identify neighborhoods that would benefit most and candidate
properties for a first round of acquisition.
Payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT)Allowing payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) to help finance affordable and mixed-
income housing development.Financing Municipal Mid-term Moderate to
high Municipality Plan Interview local developers and stakeholders to assess current
financing gaps.
Zoning for new housing development Update zoning to accommodate new housing development in appropriate
locations. Regulation Municipal Ongoing Low Municipality Inform Assess existing zoning ordinances to determine if they meet today’s
community needs and marketing demand.
Design standards updates Updating architectural design standards that reduce built-in housing costs.Regulation Municipal Ongoing Low Municipality Inform Review existing standards documents with builders and realtors to
understand cost implications.
Rental registration and licensing Establish a rental registration and licensing ordinance/program to ensure greater
transparency and accountability in the market. Regulation Municipal Mid-term Moderate Municipality Inform Research best practices, and determine what resources and data
collection is necessary in order to establish.
HOUSING TOOLKIT
ABRIDGED CENTRAL INDIANA HOUSING STUDY INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 150