This report includes both housing data and policy recommendations which are meant to stimulate debate and provide a menu of options for policy makers and intends to fulfill the following goals:
• Provide information on key socioeconomic trends which affect housing affordability including population
growth, household formation, age distribution and income growth.
• Communicate information on housing market trends including home ownership rates, rent levels and vacancy rates, home sales prices and new construction activity.
• Analyze cost components of typical new single-family housing and multifamily construction in Arizona.
• Identify potential regulatory and policy barriers to housing affordability.
• Recommend leadership and resource policies that will avert a potential housing crisis and improve housing affordability across the state.

A landmark assessment of infrastructure needs in Arizona was produced by the L. William Seidman Research Institute in May 2008 for the Arizona Investment Council (AIC): "Infrastructure Needs and Funding Alternatives for Arizona: 2008-2032", that addressed infrastructure needs in four categories: energy, telecommunications, transportation, and water and wastewater. The information from the AIC report is a major input to the report that follows. Other types of infrastructure — most notably education, health care, and public safety — also are analyzed here to provide a more complete picture of infrastructure needs in Arizona. The goals of this report are to place Arizona’s infrastructure needs into national and historical contexts, to identify the changing conditions in infrastructure provision that make building Arizona’s infrastructure in the future a more problematic proposition than in the past, and to provide projections of the possible costs of providing infrastructure in Arizona over the next quarter century.

The condition of Arizona’s infrastructure has a direct impact on economic productivity and quality of life. As economic competition expands domestically and globally, and as the knowledge economy evolves, the importance of a strong infrastructure increases. Education, in particular, is of growing importance. Arizona’s infrastructure challenges will require commitment and creativity to meet the needs and potential of 10 million people and to ensure a positive future for the state.

The age of housing in the Phoenix metropolitan area reflects the mostly steady outward spread of development. Large differences exist across the area in other housing measures. Many of these differences are closely related to geographic variations in household income and in the type of housing. As in the rest of the country, housing affordability in the Phoenix metropolitan area fell substantially in the 1970s. During the 1980s, the change in affordability varied by situation. Affordability rose for the median-income household, especially for homeownership. For those at the low end of the income spectrum, affordability of rental units improved slightly, but affordability of owned units worsened. Data for the 1990s are limited; the affordability of owned units rose for the median-income household, which could afford the median-priced home in 1998. An inadequate supply of very low-cost housing existed in the Phoenix metropolitan area in 1990. Even if low-income households were perfectly matched to low-income housing that they could afford, a little less than 3 percent of all households (about 23,000) could not have found affordable housing. The inadequacy expanded in the 1980s. The percentage of households reporting an unaffordable housing payment was much greater. Considering only low-income households who spent more than 30 percent of their income on housing, about 21 percent of all households had a housing problem related to affordability.

There are two distinct components to the economic development activities described in ADOH’s LIHTC program details. The first component is activity that strengthens the economy. This is the quantifiable activity that is the subject of this report. The second component is community building activity which can be both quantitative and qualitative. This is an area that should be considered in the debate but which is not addressed within this report.

Updates and enhances the July 1998 study which found upon review of 35 county government programs in high growth regions that Pima County generally had lower expenditures per capita and limited impact fee and affordable housing measures, compared to jurisdictions with similar pressures. This study provides a summary of the recent data and an analysis of how Pima County compares in the areas of expenditues, impact fees, and affordable housing programs in counties in Florida, California, and other Western States.

Prior to developing and approving new ordinances that would further regulate sex- offender distance restrictions and clustering, the Phoenix City Council approved a study to examine the nature and impact of sex-offender clustering. Their overall goal was to use the study to fill in some important knowledge gaps about the issue of sex-offender residential clustering in order to inform the development of effective policy. To examine this issue on behalf of the city council, we relied on a multi-methodological research design. We wanted to incorporate information from several different points of view, giving policy makers a more comprehensive perspective from which to inform their decision making. For this study, we relied on four resources: official police data, offender interview data, citizen survey data, and key stakeholder interview data.