SPATIAL MISMATCH:
The Location of Low-Wage Jobs and
Affordable Housing In Chittenden County
November 2001
A Report by the University of Vermont
Community Outreach Partnership Center
HUD COPC-VT-99-125 UVM, Burlington Vermont
prepared by Elaine McCrate,
Department of Economics
Introduction. A recent study by Economic and Policy Resources,
Inc., demonstrated the acute need for a larger and more affordable housing
supply in the six-county region of northwest Vermont, based on recent and
projected economic growth. What that report was unable to do, however,
was provide any geographic detail at the level of towns. Yet towns are the
units which have jurisdiction over zoning regulations and other land use
policy tools which critically affect the supply and the affordability of the
region’s housing stock. The purpose of this report is to provide some of that
geographic detail. It provides an overview of job growth by wage level, by
town, for all Chittenden County towns from 1990-2000 (with most attention
on the largest towns). It organizes the data so that decision makers and
stakeholders in housing policy can ask how patterns of job growth interact
with patterns of housing supply in their own towns to create or exacerbate
affordability problems.
2
The 1990s were, by one measure, a period of strong economic growth in Chittenden
County. Between 1990 and 2000, total employment increased by 17,736 jobs – or 22.9% -in Chittenden County businesses, nonprofit service organizations, and government.1
But the overall picture of robust job growth masks serious underlying problems.
First, job growth was uneven, with the older central cities losing ground or barely
holding their own: Burlington only gained 2.1%, while Winooski actually lost 16.3% of its
jobs. In contrast, Colchester employment grew by 74.7%, and Williston by 112.4%.
Second, wage growth was modest (a cumulative 8.3% over ten years after
adjusting for inflation), and unequally distributed among the workers in different
industries and towns. The leaders in wage growth were South Burlington, Burlington, and
Winooski. Wages grew at a below-average rate in Colchester and Williston; wage growth
was actually stagnant over the decade in Essex.
Developments in the labor market affect housing markets. Thus, a third problem
was that severe housing shortages developed, particularly in the affordable sector.
According to a recent study of housing availability in the 6-county region of northern
Vermont, “The northwest region currently has an estimated need for 7,400 additional
housing units,...roughly 5,300 units of owner housing and 2,100 units of renter housing are
needed in the region to help assure a more rational functioning housing market even before
the housing requirements associated with the projected economic and population growth
over the next decade.” Also according to the same study, more than half the projected
growth in owner households will occur in income categories which generally require
housing assistance. Nearly three-fourths of the projected growth in renter households over
the next decade will be in income categories which generally require housing assistance.2
Fourth, affordable housing stock remained concentrated in Burlington and Winooski,
rather than emerging in the towns which were generating the most low-wage jobs. Thus
many of the new jobholders in suburban establishments could not afford to live in the
towns where they worked.
This report summarizes existing data on these problems. It focuses primarily on
Burlington and the largest suburbs (Winooski, Williston, Essex, South Burlington,
Colchester, Shelburne, and Milton) which jointly accounted for 95.8% of all jobs in
Chittenden County in 2000.
1
All employment and wage data in this report, unless otherwise specified, refer to jobs covered by
Unemployment Insurance. The data are from the web page of the Vermont Department of Employment and
Training (http://www.det.state.vt.us/lmi/twnind/indtown-intro.cfm). The most recently available data are for
2000. Details from the DET tables are provided in the Appendix Tables A.
These are establishment data, so they describe positions in businesses, not jobs held by household
members. Thus if a Burlington business has a job which is filled by a Colchester resident, it counts here as a
Burlington job.
Annual wages include gross wages paid, bonuses, and commissions; if reported by the employer,
they also include the cash value of meals, lodging and tips. The employer cost of fringe benefits is not
included. Annual wages do not take into account hours worked, so wage changes may reflect changes in
hours or changes in hourly wages.
2
Economic and Policy Resources and Thomas E. Kavet Consulting, Housing in Northwest Vermont: A
Review of Demand and Supply of Housing in the Six County Region.
3
Suburban Job Growth
Despite continuing municipal and state efforts to keep businesses and jobs in town
centers, Burlington only gained 646 jobs over the decade, and Winooski lost 517 jobs. In
contrast, employment boomed in most of the largest suburbs. Williston, South Burlington,
and Colchester gained 5,146 jobs, 3,905 jobs, and 3,672 jobs, respectively. Essex added
2,370 jobs, and Milton and Shelburne each added close to 1,000 jobs.
Table 1. Job Growth in Selected Chittenden County Towns, 1990-2000
1990
2000
change
Chittenden Co. total
77,548
95,284
17,736
Burlington
30,801
31,447
646
Winooski
3,171
2,654
-517
Williston
4,578
9,724
5,146
South Burlington
13,545
17,450
3,905
Colchester
4,915
8,587
3,672
Milton
1,390
2,366
976
Shelburne
2,528
3,354
826
Essex
13,295
15,665
2,370
rest of county
3,325
4,037
712
Source: Appendix Tables A.
1. Low-Wage Job Growth
Our measure of wages is the average annual wage per worker, by industry, by town.
Data is not available at this level on hours worked; thus, low wages may be a result of low
hourly pay, part-time work, or both. For purposes of housing affordability, this ambiguity
matters little; what does matter is the difference between earnings and housing costs.
From 1990-2000, 45% of all Chittenden County jobs had average wages which rose by
less than 5% (after adjusting for inflation). These included jobs in government,
manufacturing, transportation and public utilities, some retail trade, and some services.
Several service and retail industries even reported declining wages in the last decade, after
adjusting for inflation. In the year 2000, 8% of the county’s jobs were in service and retail
industries which reported average wage decreases since 1990.3 In all of these cases, both
the 1990 and 2000 average wages were below $25,000.
For these reasons, and also because of the size of these industries, this report focuses
primarily on services and retail. (Some attention will also be given to manufacturing and
government employment, which together accounted for 21% of county job growth, but
which typically had higher wages.) Regrettably the DET data does not allow us to
distinguish among the many occupations within these broad industrial categories.
Nonetheless, some general conclusions may be drawn.
3
building and garden supplies, food stores, motion pictures, membership organizations, and private
household services.
4
A. Retail
Retail trade is the Chittenden County sector with the lowest average annual wages.
Within this category, food stores, apparel stores, and eating and drinking places, offer the
lowest wages in Chittenden County. General merchandise stores pay approximately the
retail average. On average, all these jobs paid less than $20,000 per year. Earnings actually
fell throughout the economic expansion in food stores and garden/building supply stores.
The DET data cannot tell us the cause: it may be due to decreases in hours or decreases in
hourly wages. It may be due to falling wages within firms, or the outmigration of firms
with high pay, or the inmigration of firms with low pay. Whatever the cause, Chittenden
County’s retail jobs pay on average only 50% of the county average for all jobs, which
could have significant implications for housing affordability, depending on the extent to
which households rely on retail earnings for their living expenses. (The relationship
between wages and total household income will be discussed shortly.)
Table 2.Trends in Chittenden County Retail Employment, 1990-2000
employment
change in share of
wage change
(in constant 2000$)
change
county retail jobs
Winooski
-382 (-48.1%)
-19.4%
+$1937 (15.5%)
Burlington
-264 (-5.1%)
-13.4%
+$1132
(8.0%)
South
+96
(2.0%)
+4.9%
+$1972 (11.6%)
Burlington
Essex
+217 (14.5%)
+11.0%
+$256
(1.7%)
Colchester
+480 (59.9%)
+24.4%
+$2677 (17.9%)
Shelburne
+390 (63.2%)
+19.8%
+$3216 (18.4%)
Milton
+93 (32.7%)
+2.0%
+$278
(2.0%)
Williston
+1,168 (222.5%)
+59.4%
-$5412 (-21.7%)
Source: Appendix Tables A. Change in share=change in town retail jobs/change in county retail jobs.
The growth rate of retail employment was below the county-wide average for all
employment growth: the total number of retail jobs only increased by about 1,966 (13.2%).
But that figure hides two big changes in retailing. First, employment shifted dramatically
from the central cities of Burlington and Winooski to the growing suburbs. Burlington lost
264 retail jobs, and Winooski lost 382. Most notably, retail employment increased by
1,168 jobs in Williston alone, and 480 in Colchester. There were also two towns, South
Burlington and Essex, which were beginning to look like many older inner-ring American
suburbs at least in the sense that they added fewer retail jobs: South Burlington only gained
96, and Essex added 217.
The second important change in retailing concerns the geographic distribution of
wage growth. Towns which had the slowest retail job growth also tended to have to
greatest retail wage growth. For example, retail jobs that remained in Burlington and
Winooski had growing real wages: 8% and 15.5%, respectively. At the other end of the
spectrum, retail wages fell in Williston by 21.7%. In fact, the simple correlation between
5
retail wage growth and the growth of town share of Chittenden County retail employment
was -.63.4
In short, retail trade shows a pattern of relocating from Burlington and Winooski to
Williston (and on a smaller scale, to Colchester). In Williston, retail wages plummeted. In
the cities which were losing retail jobs, retail wages continued to increase. We cannot infer
the cause of this trend with certainty, but a contributing factor may have been a change in
the composition of retail between towns (with, for example, Burlington becoming relatively
more upscale and Williston and Colchester more discount-oriented). Another reason may
have been a decline in the ratio of managers to sales and clerical workers as average
establishment size increased in the suburbs. The data unfortunately will not permit a
definitive test of these explanations. However, whatever the explanation, the consequences
for housing are the same: lower wage jobs make it more difficult for workers to afford
housing.
B. Services
While retail is distinctive for a relocation of jobs, the service sector stands out for
the greatest job growth in Chittenden County, both absolutely and relatively. It added
almost 10,000 new jobs in the last decade, far outstripping any other industry. Moreover,
service job growth was quite geographically spread out, with substantial increases in all the
largest towns except Winooski.
Although service sector growth was widely distributed, there was one important
geographic distinction. Some of the largest suburbs had the lowest service sector wages.
The average 2000 Chittenden County wage in services was $31,423, but the corresponding
figures for Essex, Colchester, Shelburne, Winooski, and Milton were below the average. Of
the largest towns, only Burlington, South Burlington and Williston had average or aboveaverage service sector wages.
There is considerable heterogeneity within services – since it employs doctors and
lawyers on the one hand, and daycare workers and hospital orderlies on the other. Within
this sector, hotels and other lodging, personal services, amusement and recreation, social
services, membership organizations, and private household jobs, paid on average less than
$20,000 per year, and accounted for about 22% of service sector jobs in Chittenden
County.5 These specific extremely low-wage industries did not add many jobs – only about
13% of all new service sector jobs were in these lowest-wage categories. Hotels and
lodging actually experienced a major decline in employment (although Colchester did have
a growing lodging industry). Personal service employment also decreased (the only notable
exception here being Williston).
Most service sector job creation was in business services, engineering and
management services, and healthcare. (These industries accounted for 61% of service
sector employment in 2000 and 72% of new service jobs.) Their average wages are about
equal to or above the county average for all wages ($35,296, $42,674, and $35,252,
respectively). However, even within relatively well paid industries, there is usually a lot of
dispersion around the mean. Healthcare includes both the doctors and the people who
4
The correlation coefficient was significant at the 9.5% level (8 towns with largest number of jobs).
Amusement and recreation followed the pattern of high wages in Burlington and low wages in the suburbs.
The average industry wage in Burlington was a surprising $49,015 while the county average was $16,752.
5
6
empty bedpans. Business services includes both high-tech consultants and janitors who
work for commercial cleaning firms.6
Looking to the future, the recent study of northwest Vermont housing needs
projected for the 2000-2010 period, “The long-term economic forecast also indicates
that over half of the region’s new employment opportunities – or 22,800 jobs – will be
created in the service sector, and another 8,000 jobs will be created in trade – a
category of jobs where wages are low and housing assistance needs tend to be high.
Although some of these jobs are high-paying, the majority of jobs in the Services and
Trade are among the lowest-paying in the regional economy. That means that nearly
one in two new jobs to be created in the region over the next decade will be in job
categories where affordable housing needs tend to be high. Therefore, a key economic
performance question for the six county region for the future is how and where the
people who are likely to fill these generally lower-paying jobs will find affordable
housing.” 7
C. Other Industries with Stagnant Wages
Two other big industries in Chittenden County had stagnant wages over the decade.
Each of these industries, manufacturing and government, employed more than 10,000
workers. Each of them had inflation-adjusted wage increases of less than 5%. (Another
smaller industry, transportation and public utilities, also had stagnant wages.)
Government sector wages actually fell in seven Chittenden County towns. These
numbers are hard to interpret, but the fiscal constraints on towns in the last ten years have
been severe and were probably a contributing factor.
Manufacturing, which has an average wage well above the county average, also had
stagnant wages. Although manufacturing wages increased by more than 10% in Burlington,
Colchester, Winooski, Richmond, Hinesburg, and especially Milton, these increases were
offset by stagnant or declining wages elsewhere.
Manufacturing in the town of Essex is a particularly interesting case. Although data
on the Essex manufacturing sector are suppressed for reasons of confidentiality, it is
possible to infer some probable trends, in the following manner. Manufacturing is one of
three broad industries with suppressed wages; the other two are agriculture and mining.
Together these three industries accounted for 60% of total town jobs in 2000,8 and
6
Although a recent sample of sufficient size does not exist for Chittenden County, the 1990 Census microdata
give some idea of the extent of low-wage employment in these industries. In the Vermont health care
industry, for example, mean earnings in 1989 (adjusted to 2000$) was $30,175 (very close to the inflationadjusted DET 1990 figure of $30,559 for Chittenden County). However, in 1989, 38.1% of Vermont health
care workers earned less than $20,000 per year in inflation-adjusted dollars.
Annual Wages in Vermont in Selected Service Industries (1990 census)
Industry
Mean 1989 earnings in 2000$
% earning below $20,000 (2000$)
health care
$30,175
38.1%
business services
$23,098
51.6%
engineering, mgmt services
$52,586
18.3%
These calculations refer to workers aged 16-65, excluding self-employed persons, unpaid family workers,
government employees, and students aged 16-22.
7
Economic and Policy Resources and Thomas E. Kavet Consulting, Housing in Northwest Vermont: A
Review of Demand and Supply of Housing in the Six County Region.
8
(15665-(543+173+382+1713+227+1902+1317))/15665=60%; see appendix Table A.
7
manufacturing is most likely the largest of the three, by far. While not impossible, it would
be difficult for overall wages to be stagnant if 60% of the jobs had robust wage growth.9
2. Housing Shortages
Several recent studies have concluded that robust local job growth has stimulated
in-migration to the northwest Vermont area, which in turn has resulted in increased housing
demand in Chittenden County.10 In particular, rapid low-wage job growth is likely to
generate growing demand for affordable housing.
This claim depends crucially, however, on whether low-wage workers have access
to any other income. On the one hand, some of them live in households with other earners,
and/or have other sources of income, so that many low-wage workers are not actually poor
or struggling. (The stereotypical example would be a woman who worked part-time, but
whose husband worked fulltime for much higher wages.) On the other hand, though,
according to the Vermont subsample of the Current Population Survey (1999), 39% of
employed wage and salary workers in the Burlington metropolitan statistical area who
earned less than $20,000 were members of households with total household income of less
than $30,000. (See Table 3.)11 $30,000 is about 60% of median household income for this
area. These data suggest that a large number of low-wage earners are members of
households who would have difficulty getting financing for an owner-occupied home, and
may even find unsubsidized rent levels difficult to afford.
Who cannot afford to rent in the Burlington metropolitan area? Table 4 compares
the average September 2000 monthly rent for one-bedroom and two-bedroom Chittenden
County apartments, as reported in the Allen and Cable Report (June 2001), with the median
year-round full-time earnings in various occupations, for the Burlington metropolitan area
in 2000.12 Workers in many common jobs cannot even afford one-bedroom apartments.
9
In the remaining industries, wages were also stagnant in three other industries which account for 31% of
total employment in the town (retail, services and government). In transportation, finance, and wholesale,
(5% of town employment) wages rose steeply. There were simply no other industries large enough, to
account for the town’s wage stagnation, other than the combination of manufacturing, agriculture and mining.
10
Allen and Cable, June 2001, and Economic and Policy Resources and Thomas E. Kavet Consulting,
Housing in Northwest Vermont: A Review of Demand and Supply of Housing in the Six County Region.
11
Author’s calculations from the March 1999 Current Population Survey for Vermont. The Burlington
metropolitan statistical area overlaps substantially with Chittenden County, including the towns of
Burlington, Charlotte, Colchester, Essex, Hinesburg, Jericho, Milton, Richmond, St. George, Shelburne,
South Burlington, Williston, Winooski, Fairfax, Georgia, St. Albans, Swanton, Grand Isle, and South Hero.
The tabulations include all workers, whether fulltime or part-time.
12
Occupational earnings data are from the Vermont Department of Employment and Training web page
http://www.det.state.vt.us/lmi/.
8
Table 3: How Many Low-Wage Workers Live in Low-Income
Households? Burlington MSA, 1999
Workers earning
$1-9,999
Household income
<$9,999
Household income
$10,000-19,999
Household income
$20,000-29,999
Household income
>$30,000
Workers earning
$10,000-19,999
18.4%
(13.2%)
12.5%
(14.8%)
8.1%
(4.4%)
61.0%
(67.6%)
Workers earning
$20,000-29,999
--
--
7.5%
(0)
0
(0)
92.5%
(100.0%)
-13.5%
(6.5%)
86.5%
(93.6%)
Source: March 1999 Current Population Survey. This sample excluded students ages 16-24. The
numbers in parentheses in the bottom of each cell are based on a sample which also excluded 1person households. Columns sum to 100% (except in cases of rounding error); n=272.
Table 4: Who Can’t Afford to Rent Here?
Rents and Year-Round Full-Time Earnings for Selected Occupations
in the Burlington Area, 2000
Annual rent for 1-bedroom unit, utilities included
Income required to afford 1-bedroom unit*
Annual rent for 2-bedroom unit, utilities included
Income required to afford 2-bedroom unit*
auto mechanics
executive secretaries and administrative assistants
kindergarten teachers
computer operators
coaches
highway maintenance workers
school bus drivers
medical secretaries
receptionists
nursing aides, orderlies and attendants
janitors
taxi drivers
hotel desk clerks
teacher assistants
security guards
tellers
cashiers
$7,896
$26,320
$10,032
$33,440
$31,950
$31,390
$29,060
$26,770
$25,790
$25,180
$25,050
$21,740
$21,340
$20,530
$18,360
$18,180
$17,610
$17,560
$17,480
$17,070
$14,660
Source: Chittenden County rents are from Allen and Cable Report June 2001; Burlington metropolitan area earnings are
from http://www.det.state.vt.us/lmi/
* This assumes that rent and utilities are 30% of gross earnings.
9
Thus, low-wage job growth will contribute to growing demand for modestly priced
housing. The increased demand for workers, particularly in low-wage suburban retail and
service employment, contributed to critically low rental vacancy rates in Chittenden
County, less than 1% by 1998, and only 0.3% in June 2001. (Allen and Cable, 2001)13
Housing experts generally consider a 3%-5% vacancy rate necessary for smoothly
functioning housing markets.
A recent study for the Vermont Housing Council projected the demand for
affordable housing to the year 2010, in the six-county region of northwest Vermont:
“More than one half of the projected growth in owner households over the next
decade will occur in income categories which generally require housing assistance.
The long-term demand projections indicate that owner households are projected to
increase by just over 17,500 households over the 2000-2010 time-period – a level
that is over 10 percent higher than the growth in the number of owner households
during the 1990s. Of the owner households, roughly 3,500 households are
projected to be in the less than 50 percent of median income categories, 2,850
households are projected to be in the 51 percent to 80 percent of median income
class, roughly 1,700 more are projected to be in the 81 percent to 100 percent of
median income class, and roughly 1,800 more are projected to be in the 101 percent
to 120 percent of median household income categories – the categories generally
though to include those who require housing assistance.
“Nearly three-fourths of the projected regional growth in renter households over the
next decade will occur in income categories which generally require housing
assistance. Renter households are projected to increase by roughly 5,600
households over the 2000-2010 time frame – a level that is more than 80 percent
greater than the renter household growth rate during the 1990s. Of the renter
households, roughly 1,700 households – or nearly 1/3rd of the household increase –
are projected to be in the less than 31 percent of median income class. Roughly 925
more are projected to be in the 31 percent to 50 percent of median income class,
meaning that over 50 percent of the 5,225 renter household increase over the next
ten years are projected to be in the less than 50 percent of the regional median
household income categories. Over 1,000 more are projected to be in the 51
percent to 80 percent of median income class. As a result, over 70 percent of the
projected increase in renter households, or roughly 3,670 households over the next
ten years, is expected to be in the less than 80 percent of median income categories.
These are the income categories generally expected to require housing assistance.”14
13
Of course low vacancy rates also reflect slow growth in the supply of rental units, which Allen and Cable
(June 2001) estimated at about 1% per year between 1990 and 2000.
14
Economic and Policy Resources, Housing in Northwest Vermont: A Review of Demand and Supply of
Housing in the Six County Region.
10
Economic theory predicts that when the demand for a good outstrips the supply,
prices (in this case, rents or property values) rise.15 Allen and Cable (2001) estimated
that rent for one and two-bedroom units increased 6-7% in the year 2000 (about twice
the rate of inflation overall), and nearly 12% for three-bedroom units.16
4. Spatial Mismatch
To summarize so far: There has been a tremendous growth in low-wage
employment in the larger Chittenden County suburbs. Many of these workers live in lowincome households which are potentially facing severe problems of housing affordability.
Yet, while most of Chittenden County low-wage job growth has occurred in the larger
suburbs, Burlington and Winooski disproportionately contain the housing stock which is
affordable to low-wage workers. Thus the largest suburban towns increased their
employment of poorly paid workers, but provided few places for them to live. This is often
called “spatial mismatch.”
We have several measures of housing affordability by town. First, a report on The
History of Sprawl in Chittenden County (Champlain Initiative, 1999) provided data on
publicly assisted affordable housing by town in 1998.
Unfortunately, HUD’s series on fair market rents for the Burlington metropolitan area cannot be compared
over the entire period 1990-2000. In the middle of the period, HUD made two big changes: switching from
the 45th percentile to the 40th percentile, and adding towns in Franklin and Grand Isle counties.
16
The HUD fair market rent (two-bedroom unit) increased from $697 in 2000 to $815 in 2001 – a 16.9%
increase in one year!
15
11
Table 5: Publicly Assisted Affordable Housing, March 1998
Town
Project-based Assisted Units
number of
units
Chittenden
County total
Burlington
Winooski
South Burlington
Colchester
Essex
Essex Junction
Williston
Bolton
Charlotte
Hinesburg
Huntington
Jericho
Milton
Richmond
St. George
Shelburne
Underhill
Westford
% of county total
Tenant-Based Assisted Units
number of
units
% of county total
3,569
100.0
1,267
100.0
1,978
451
230
403
10
69
185
80
0
74
1
26
24
31
0
7
0
0
55.4
12.6
6.4
11.3
0.3
1.9
5.2
2.2
0
2.1
0
0.7
0.7
0.9
0
0.2
0
0
752
185
56
115
73
13
17
2
0
5
2
1
30
3
0
9
2
2
59.3
14.6
4.4
9.1
5.8
1.0
1.3
0.2
0
0.4
0.2
0.1
2.4
0.2
0
0.7
0.2
0.2
Source: Champlain Initiative, The History of Sprawl in Chittenden County. Burlington, 1999, p. 54.
Just the two towns of Burlington and Winooski had 68% of the project-based units
and 74% of the tenant-based units in Chittenden County. The towns of South Burlington,
Colchester, and Essex/Essex Junction had about 20% of the project-based units and 19% of
the tenant-based units. (Many of Colchester’s affordable housing units were for the elderly,
not working-aged population.) Williston, which had gained so many low-wage retail jobs
between 1990 and 1998, had only 5.2% of the project-based assisted units and only 1.3% of
the tenant-based assisted units in Chittenden County.
A second indicator of spatial mismatch is a comparison of median property values
for residential units, by town, with the average town wages which were discussed above.
Table 6 lists all the towns in Chittenden County in order of the median equalized assessed
property values. (More detail on property values in individual towns, by property type, is
available in Appendix B.)
12
Table 6: Property Values for Residential Properties in
Chittenden County
Median Equalized
Assessed Property
Value (all condos,
Average Annual
landed mobile homes, and Wage in Town
non-farm, nonChittenden
Businesses, 2000
commercial residential
County Town
properties)
Underhill
$26,489
Westford
$21,469
Huntington
$27,223
St. George
$15,170
Bolton
$80,836
$16,616
Winooski
$107,799
$27,516
Milton
$116,377
$30,296
Essex Jct.
$120,311
$46,169*
S. Burlington
$120,790
$32,188
Burlington
$125,321
$33,764
Colchester
$130,802
$31,299
Essex
$135,852
$46,169*
Hinesburg
$137,281
$24,393
Richmond
$137,626
$23,200
Jericho
$147,115
$26,080
Williston
$159,172
$33,281
Shelburne
$170,575
$25,205
Charlotte
$235,128
$29,483
Source: Appendix Tables A for wage data. Property values were
extracted from local property tax assessment databases for Chittenden
County towns by Justin Dextradeur.
* Essex and Essex Junction merged in wage data.
Table 7 estimates monthly costs for principal and interest payments in the largest
Chittenden County towns, and compares these figures to monthly wages (the average
annual wages examined earlier, divided by 12). These figures, of course, underestimate
total housing costs, because they do not include property taxes and hazard insurance. Yet in
Shelburne, Williston and Colchester, the ratio of these costs to the average monthly wage
paid in those towns exceeds 30%, the threshold that is usually taken to signal excessive
housing costs. For workers in retail and service jobs in most of these towns, housing costs
consume even more of their incomes. None of these towns even comes close to a 30% ratio
for retail workers. Only Burlington and South Burlington fall below 30% for service sector
workers. The town of Shelburne appears to present the greatest affordability problems for
people who work there and want to live there.
13
Table 7: Cost of Principal and Interest Relative to Wages in Eight Largest Chittenden County Towns
monthly payment/ monthly payment/
principal monthly payment
monthly
payment retail
retail service
service
town
(5%
(30 year mortgage)
wage
/ wage wage
wage wage
wage
down)
(int=7%)
(int=7%)
(int=7%)
7% interest
6.5%interest
Winooski
$102,409
$677.38
$643.81
$2,293
30%
Burlington
$119,055
$787.48
$748.45
$2,814
28%
Williston
$151,213 $1000.19
$950.62
$2,773
36%
S.Burlington $114,751
$759.01
$721.39
$2,682
28%
Colchester
$124,262
$821.92
$781.19
$2,608
32%
Essex
$129,059
$853.66
$811.35
$3,847
22%
Essex Jct.
$114,295
$756.00
$718.53
$3,847
20%
Shelburne
$162,046 $1071.85 $1018.72
$2,100
51%
Milton
$110,558
$731.28
$695.04
$2,525
29%
Source : Table 5 for property values, and Appendix Tables A for wages.
$1,204
$1.274
$1,629
$1,578
$1,468
$1,304
$1,304
$1,725
$1,162
56%
62%
61%
48%
56%
65%
58%
62%
63%
$1,753
$2,883
$2,820
$2,631
$2,369
$2,179
$2,179
$1,874
$1,693
A third indicator of spatial mismatch is census commuting data. Data from the 2000
census will not be released until 2002. However, we can see that spatial mismatch was
already well underway by 1990. Appendix Table C1 shows that people with low earnings
in 1989 were in fact more likely to live in the central city and work in the suburbs, than
were people with high earnings. 17 (See column (d).) Appendix Table C2 shows that people
who lived in Burlington in 1990 but worked in the suburbs are disproportionately low
earners. (In these tables, the Census Bureau included Winooski among the "suburban”
towns.)
Conclusions.
Chittenden County job growth had a dark underside in the 1990s. Many low-wage
jobs were created, particularly in the larger suburbs of Burlington. Yet the affordable
housing stock did not increase enough in these towns to absorb the new low-wage
households which needed housing during this decade. Affordable housing remained
concentrated in Burlington and Winooski. Many workers could not afford to live in the
towns that they served.
Burlington and Winooski are familiar with the problems that this presents: the
spatial segregation of working poor populations, the crowding of low-rent urban
neighborhoods and thus the likely increase in rents, maintenance needs, and other housing
problems, and the transportation needs of low-wage workers who must commute to other
towns for employment. Education of suburban towns’ residents, elected officials and
administrators regarding the spillover effects of their economic development patterns on
neighboring towns should be a high priority.
The 1990 census results included a CD-ROM entitled “Journey to Work in the United States” which
included detail on earnings by location of home and location of job. (Subject Summary Tape File (SSTF) 20)
Because the Census Bureau could not get data on total 1990 earnings in early 1990, it used total 1989
earnings, with 1990 location information.
17
14
39%
27%
35%
29%
35%
39%
35%
57%
43%
APPENDIX TABLES A:
Job Trends in Chittenden County Towns,
1990-2000
Source: Vermont Department of Employment and Training:
(http://www.det.state.vt.us/lmi/twnind/indtown-intro.cfm).
15
Appendix Table B:
Median Property Values By Town and Unit Type*
* These data were collected by Justin Dextradeur from individual town property tax
records. There were numerous inconsistencies in how towns listed property types, which
required some judgment as to how to categorize some properties.
16
APPENDIX TABLES C:
Locations of Jobs and Residences by Level of Earnings, 1990
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, “Journey to Work in the United States”. (Subject Summary Tape File
(SSTF) 20)
17
18
Table C1: *
Who Lives in the City but Works in the Suburbs? (and vice versa)
Data from the 1990 census Journey to Work CD
Burlington, Vermont MSA, 1989
Workers Aged 16+
(a)
Earnings (1989)
Total (%)
0
1-4,999 or loss
5,000-9,999
10,000-14,999
15,000-24,999
25,000-34,999
35,000-49,999
50,000-74,999
75,000-99,999
100,000 and over
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
% live in Burlingon,
% live in suburbs,
% live in Burlington,
% live in suburbs,
% live in MSA, work
work in Burlington
work in suburbs1
work in suburbs
work in central city
outside MSA
16.88
46.93
10.22
19.33
6.64
24.26
46.53
9.98
11.72
7.51
29.61
45.74
10.03
9.14
5.49
24.56
42.82
14.89
13.07
4.66
21.86
40.65
10.99
20.83
5.67
14.01
43.85
11.41
24.18
6.55
10.73
49.22
9.67
21.74
8.64
10.61
56.24
6.32
18.97
7.86
6.07
59.59
5.64
21.52
7.19
10.85
51.50
8.64
21.15
7.86
22.33
39.15
5.61
29.10
3.81
* For Table C1, rows sum to 100%.
1
“suburbs” = remainder of Burlington SMA excluding central city. People who live in suburbs and work in suburbs include intersuburban
commuters.
19
Table C2: *
Who Lives in the City but Works in the Suburbs? (continued)
Burlington MSA, 1990
Workers Aged 16+
(a)
Earnings (1989)
0
1-4,999 or loss
5,000-9,999
10,000-14,999
15,000-24,999
25,000-34,999
35,000-49,999
50,000-74,999
75,000-99,999
100,000 and over
(b)
Total (%)
1.72
12.08
11.30
12.23
25.53
16.94
11.90
5.68
1.28
1.34
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
% live in
% live in suburbs, % live in
% live in suburbs, % live in MSA,
Burlington, work
work in suburbs
Burlington, work
work in
work outside
in Burlington
in suburbs
Burlington
MSA
2.47
1.70
1.68
1.04
1.94
21.18
11.77
11.85
5.71
9.97
16.44
10.31
16.46
7.64
7.92
15.84
10.60
13.16
13.18
10.44
21.19
23.86
28.51
31.94
25.18
10.77
17.77
16.03
19.06
22.04
7.48
14.26
7.36
11.68
14.07
2.04
7.22
3.14
6.33
6.15
0.82
1.41
1.08
1.40
1.52
1.77
1.12
0.74
2.02
0.83
* For Table C2, columns sum to 100%.
20