Is the Cuyahoga County Foreclosure Crisis Over? It depends on where you’re standing. A Report on Housing Trends in Cuyahoga County 1995 – 2015 Frank Ford, Senior Policy Advisor Western Reserve Land Conservancy fford@wrlandconservancy.org March 17, 2016 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report on Cuyahoga County Housing Trends updates an earlier report issued in September 20131, and reviews mortgage foreclosure, property tax foreclosure, vacant property and home sale price trends. Over the past year news media reports at the national level would lead one to believe the foreclosure crisis is over and the real estate market is well on the road to recovery. Less robust but similar trends have been reported for Northeastern Ohio and Cuyahoga County. This report on housing trends takes a closer look at the Cuyahoga housing market from two vantage points. First, historical data is presented so that current conditions can be seen in relation to conditions prior to the foreclosure crisis2. Second, and perhaps more importantly, trends are analyzed at the “sub-market” level; more than 90 Cuyahoga suburbs and Cleveland neighborhoods are analyzed3. As will be demonstrated in this report, positive trends at the County and regional level mask a much slower recovery in many parts of the County. The true health of the Cuyahoga housing market only comes into focus when neighborhood and suburban sub-markets are taken into consideration. Summary of Findings and Observations  Positive Trends Consistent with reports at the national level, foreclosure filings in Cuyahoga County have continued to decrease and, if the current trend continues, within one or two years will be back to 1995 levels, before the foreclosure crisis began.  Concerns Although ninety (90+) day mortgage delinquencies have also declined, they have not declined to the same degree as foreclosure filings and as of October 2015 were still three times the level they were between 1995 and 1997. This suggests many homeowners are still in financial distress and struggling to pay their mortgages. 1 “Foreclosure and Vacant Property Trends in Cuyahoga County”, Frank Ford, 9-22-13. There is no definitive source for determining when the foreclosure crisis began. Many would cite 2007 when the Wall Street Journal began to write about the collapse of major financial institutions. However, increases in mortgage foreclosure were observed in Cuyahoga County as early as 2000. For the purpose of this report the period between 1995 and 2000 will be deemed to be “prior to the foreclosure crisis”. 3 Much of the data for this report was provided by NEO CANDO at Case Western Reserve University. Cleveland neighborhood home sales and vacancy data are reported according to new neighborhood boundaries adopted by the City of Cleveland in 2012. At the time of this report Cleveland neighborhood foreclosure filing data was not available for the 2012 boundaries and is instead reported for the pre-2012 boundaries. 2 2  County-wide the number of vacant 1-3 family homes has decreased over the past 6 years, from a high of nearly 25,000 down to 15,000.  Nearly half of the vacant homes are believed to be both vacant and blighted; these blighted homes present the greatest threat to housing market recovery.  The number of blighted 1-3 family homes requiring demolition in Cleveland is now estimated to be 5,246, down from the 7,771 previously estimated by the City of Cleveland.  The most blighted homes – those likely to require demolition – are not distributed equally throughout the county; 70% are concentrated in only two locations: the East Side of the City of Cleveland and the suburb of East Cleveland.  The County Prosecutor has done a good job of increasing Board of Revision (BOR) Tax Foreclosure cases on vacant tax delinquent property.  The increase in BOR foreclosure has come at the expense of a decrease in Judicial Tax Foreclosure cases. Meanwhile, property tax delinquency has increased dramatically over the past 7 years. An increase in capacity will likely be needed for the Prosecutor to meet the demands of both BOR tax foreclosure and judicial tax foreclosure.  Home sale prices experienced significant decline after 2005, but one positive that cuts across all county submarkets is that the free fall of median home price has stopped; prices in nearly all neighborhoods and suburbs have hit bottom, leveled off and are beginning to rise.  While many suburban markets are well on the road to recovery, many Cleveland East Side neighborhoods and East Inner Suburbs, where blight and abandonment are still high, have seen a 70-80% reduction of their prior median price and are still struggling with recovery.  Some Outer Suburbs like Westlake and Bay Village have recovered most of their lost value.   The number of traditional “armslength” home sales is on the increase in all sub-regions of Cuyahoga County. Although foreclosure filings have come down, the foreclosure crisis cannot be deemed “over” while significant portions of the county continue to be burdened with high concentrations of vacant and blighted homes.  3 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................ 2 Summary of Findings and Observations .................................................................................................. 2 Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................ 4 PART 1 - MORTGAGE DELINQUENCY AND FORECLOSURE .......................................................................... 6 PART 2 - PROPERTY TAX DELINQUENCY AND FORECLOSURE ...................................................................... 9 A. Property Tax Delinquency ............................................................................................................. 10 B. Property Tax Foreclosure .............................................................................................................. 12 Types of Tax Foreclosure................................................................................................................... 12 Capacity to Respond to Growing Delinquency .................................................................................. 14 PART 3 - VACANT PROPERTY ..................................................................................................................... 16 C. Cuyahoga Vacancy – US Postal Service Data ................................................................................. 16 D. Cleveland Vacancy – Door To Door Property Condition Surveys ................................................... 19 PART 4 - HOME SALE TRENDS ................................................................................................................... 24 A. Median Price of Arms-Length Sales............................................................................................... 24 Home Sale Trends Methodology ....................................................................................................... 24 B. Vacancy and Home Price Trends ................................................................................................... 35 1. Cleveland Neighborhood Vacancy and Median Home Sales ..................................................... 35 2. Cuyahoga County Vacancy and Median Home Sales ................................................................. 37 C. Volume of Arms-Length Sales ....................................................................................................... 37 D. Single Family Sales vs 1-3 Family Sales .......................................................................................... 38 E. Home Sale Trends – Final Thoughts and Suggestions for Further Research .................................. 39 1. Sub-neighborhood Target Area Research ................................................................................. 39 2. Impact of Foreclosure on Median Price of Properties Not Foreclosed On ................................ 40 3. Measuring Access to Home Mortgage Loans ............................................................................ 42 Appendix A: Mortgage Foreclosure Filings ........................................................................................... 44 Appendix B: US Postal Vacancy for Neighborhoods and Suburbs ........................................................ 47 Appendix C: Number of Arms-Length Home Sales 2000 – 2015: Cleveland Neighborhoods.............. 49 Appendix D: Number of Arms-Length Home Sales 2000 – 2015: Cuyahoga Suburbs ........................ 50 Appendix E: Number of Arms-Length Home Sales 2000 – 2015: Cuyahoga Regions ......................... 52 Appendix F: Single Family vs 1-3 Family Arms-Length Home Sales .................................................... 53 4 Appendix G: Cleveland Neighborhoods................................................................................................ 56 Appendix H: Cuyahoga Suburbs ........................................................................................................... 57 5 PART 1 - MORTGAGE DELINQUENCY AND FORECLOSURE Twenty years ago a report on Cuyahoga County housing trends would have devoted little attention to mortgage foreclosure filings. In fact as recently as 10 years ago foreclosure filing data maintained by the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court did not include sufficient information to track foreclosures by location. Using data collected by Case Western Reserve University (CWRU), this report begins with an analysis of foreclosure trends between 2007 and 2015 4, and will break out filings by type (mortgage and tax foreclosure) and by neighborhood, suburb and Cuyahoga regions 5. Figure 1 At the peak of the foreclosure crisis in 2007, mortgage foreclosure filings were nearly 4 times the rate they were in 1995 before the foreclosure crisis began (Figure 1 above). By the end of 2015 they had decreased to 1.4 times the 1995 rate, and if this trend continues will be on track to reach 1995 levels within one or two more years.6 4 The mortgage foreclosure data in this report combines foreclosures on commercial and industrial property. As a point of reference, an analysis of 84,513 foreclosures filed in Cuyahoga County between 2007 and 2012 reveals that 91% were on residential-class property. 5 In addition to the tables and charts on the following pages, Tables 13-16 in Appendix A at the end of this report provide the number of foreclosure filings in each neighborhood and suburb between 2006 and 2015. 6 The foreclosure count for 1995 combines mortgage and tax foreclosure. 6 As noted in Figure 2 below, the downward trend of mortgage foreclosure filings can be seen in all regions of the County. The greatest drop has been on the East Side of Cleveland where foreclosures had been at their highest in 2007. For several years the Outer Suburbs ran counter to the overall downward trend; foreclosures were on the increase in the Outer Suburbs until 2012. However, since then they have joined all regions of the county on a similar downward trajectory. The brief increase in the Outer Suburbs, while foreclosures were declining in other parts of the county, is consistent with anecdotal reports from foreclosure counselors that as foreclosures on subprime loans in the inner city began to decrease in 2008 and 2009, the economic recession and the loss of jobs associated with the foreclosure crisis led to an increase in foreclosures on prime loans in the suburbs. Figure 2 Although all regions of Cuyahoga County are experiencing declines in mortgage foreclosure, the crisis has not been experienced equally by all regions. When mortgage foreclosure filings in a region are compared to the number of parcels in that region (Table 1 below), it becomes clear that some areas have experienced a greater concentration of mortgage foreclosure activity. 7 Concentration of Mortgage Foreclosure by Cuyahoga Region Residential Parcels (1-3 units) Cuyahoga Region East Side of Cleveland East Inner Suburbs Num ber 68,172 84,430 Mortgage Foreclosure Filings Expressed as a % of Parcels 2007 Filings 4,359 3,257 2015 Percent 6.4% 3.9% Filings 821 1,310 2007 through 2015 Percent 1.2% 1.6% Filings Percent 19,219 28% 23,117 27% West Side of Cleveland 58,979 1,885 3.2% 677 1.1% 13,227 22% West Inner Suburbs 72,936 1,071 1.5% 586 0.8% 9,474 13% Outer Suburbs 166,629 1,853 1.1% 1,084 0.7% 17,429 10% City of Cleveland 127,151 6,244 4.91% 1,498 1.18% 32,446 25.52% Cuyahoga Suburbs 323,995 6,181 1.91% 2,980 0.92% 50,020 15.44% Cuyahoga County 451,146 12,425 2.75% 4,478 0.99% 82,466 18.28% Source: NEO CANDO at Case Western Reserve University The above parcel counts do not include approximately 1% of residential parcels in Cuyahoga County that are missing a geographic identifier recognized by the NEO CANDO data system. Note: the exact number of parcels does not remain constant. Over time the number of parcels may expand or contract, for example, w hen a parcel is split to create new parcels, or one or more parcels are combined into a single parcel. Table 1 On the positive side, it should be noted that the percent of parcels with foreclosure filings in 2015 is far less than it was in 2007. However, when viewing the cumulative 9 year period between 2007 and 2015, the highest concentration of foreclosure activity is in the predominantly African American East Side of Cleveland and East Inner Suburbs (28% and 27% shaded in the table above). Later in this report a similar pattern will be apparent when looking at vacancy and blight, and when looking at the disparity of median home sale prices by region. Because there could be more than one foreclosure filing in the same year on a parcel, and even several foreclosures could have been filed on the same parcel over the 9 year period – the percentages cited in Table 1 cannot be interpreted as the “percent of parcels that have had a foreclosure”. Nevertheless these percentages are useful as an indication of the volume of foreclosure activity distributed over different geographies. The downward trend in mortgage foreclosure filings is a hopeful sign and suggests that the incoming pipeline of foreclosure-induced abandonment has slowed. However, a disturbing fact is that while 90+ day mortgage delinquencies have declined along with foreclosure filings, they are still 3 times the rate they were in 1995 (Figure 3 below). This suggests that a significant number of borrowers are still in financial distress and could benefit from foreclosure counseling and homeowner assistance. 8 Figure 3 It is beyond the scope of this report to determine with any certainty why mortgage delinquencies have not declined to the same extent as mortgage foreclosure filings. But at least three scenarios are possible, some optimistic, some not. 1. An optimistic view would be that lenders have ramped up their efforts to modify loans in default and are working out solutions that avoid foreclosures having to be filed. 2. A less optimistic view would be that lenders simply have a backlog of foreclosures they are still working through and have yet to foreclose on. 3. Another less optimistic view would be that lenders are simply “charging off” the most distressed loans and not bothering to foreclose. There is anecdotal evidence from community development practitioners that suggest some lenders may decide not to foreclose on properties that have become abandoned and deteriorated. PART 2 - PROPERTY TAX DELINQUENCY AND FORECLOSURE At the beginning of the foreclosure crisis it was commonplace for researchers to report all foreclosure together, combining mortgage and tax foreclosure. It has since become clear that mortgage and tax 9 foreclosure have different trends – while mortgage delinquency and foreclosure have been decreasing, tax delinquency and foreclosure have been increasing, and within tax foreclosure there are subcategories that have had significantly different experiences in recent years. An accurate picture can only be arrived at by analyzing the different types of foreclosure individually. A. Property Tax Delinquency Unlike mortgage delinquency, which has been declining in recent years, residential property tax delinquency has been increasing in Cuyahoga County (Table 2 and Figure 4 below). Residential Class Tax Delinquency 2009-2015 Tax Year 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total Parcels Delinquent 27,717 31,528 28,736 29,559 30,737 37,434 39,409 Amount Average Delinquent Delinquency $89,912,521 $3,064 $122,711,085 $3,892 $123,328,196 $4,292 $142,908,969 $4,835 $166,263,520 $5,409 $214,660,088 $5,734 $242,467,151 $6,153 Median Delinquency $1,727 $2,389 $2,388 $2,688 $2,715 $2,633 $2,789 Source: Cuyahoga County Treasury data provided to NEO CANDO at Case Western Reserve University. All residential-class parcels with certified delinquent balance of at least $1. Table 2 Figure 4 10 As Figure 4 above graphically shows, the number of residential tax delinquent parcels in Cuyahoga County has increased since 2009 by 42%, from 27,717 to 39,409. Not only has the number of delinquent parcels increased, but the amount of delinquency on these parcels is growing; the average per parcel delinquency has doubled since 2009 from $3,064 to $6,153 (Figure 5 below). Figure 5 Figure 6 11 Yet the most dramatic increase has been the total outstanding delinquency, which has increased by 170% since 2009, from $89.9 Million to $242.5 Million (Figure 6 above). The current $242.5 Million residential property tax delinquency would actually be even higher had the County not sold more than $70 Million in property tax debt over the past five years to a private investor. On the positive side the proceeds from the sale of that debt represent collection of critically needed revenue for schools, police, fire and social services. On the other hand, the sale of the debt does not mean it has gone away, it’s simply being held by private parties instead of the County. In recent years questions have been raised about the debt collection practices of private tax certificate buyers, and whether negative outcomes are less frequent when counties retain control of delinquent debt collection rather than transferring it to private parties7. The Cuyahoga County Treasurer has been working closely with housing advocates to explore solutions to these issues8. B. Property Tax Foreclosure Types of Tax Foreclosure Property owners who become delinquent on their property taxes can enter into payment plans with the County. As noted above the County can also sell a taxpayer’s delinquency to a third party in the form of a tax certificate. The tax certificate buyer can also enter into a payment plan with the delinquent property owner. But ultimately, if the debt is not satisfied, the response will likely be one of three types of property tax foreclosure: Judicial, Board of Revision, or Tax Certificate foreclosure. Judicial tax foreclosure cases are typically initiated on occupied property and are filed in the County Common Pleas Court. Board of Revision (BOR) tax foreclosure cases, initiated exclusively on vacant tax delinquent property, are filed with the Clerk of the Common Pleas Court but are heard and decided by an administrative board, the Board of Revision. Tax Certificate foreclosures are the third type of tax foreclosure and are filed by private parties who purchase taxpayer debt from the County. Tax Certificate foreclosures are not identified as such by the Clerk of the Common Pleas Court but are reported as “Other” foreclosures along with Quiet Title and Partition lawsuits. Tax Lien Certificate foreclosures comprise 95-97% of the "Other" category 9. They have varied somewhat by year, but have generally been increasing since 2007. 7 See: “Property Tax Delinquency and Tax Lien Sales in Cuyahoga County”, Vacant and Abandoned Property Action Council (2015) http://www.wrlandconservancy.org/publications-by-type/special-publications/; “The True Cost of Not Paying Your Property Taxes In Ohio,” Charles D. Rittenhouse, Univ. of Dayton Law Review, Vol. 36:2 (2011); “Making Debt Pay: Examining The Use Of Property Tax Delinquency As A Revenue Source,” Michelle Z. Marchiony, Emory Univ. Law Journal, Vol. 62:217 (2012), available at http://law.emory.edu/elj/content/volume-62/issue1/comments/making-debt-pay.html; “The Other Foreclosure Crisis—Property Tax Lien Sales”, National Consumer Law Center, (July 2012); “Analysis of Bulk Tax Lien Sale—City of Rochester”, Center For Community Progress, (Feb. 2013); “Homes for the Taking—Liens, Losses and Profiteers,” Michael Sallah, Debbie Cenziper, Steven Rich, Washington Post (Sept. 8, 2013), available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/collection/homesfor-the-taking/; “Debt-Collecting Machine,” Michael Sallah, Debbie Cenziper, Washington Post (Dec. 8, 2013), available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2013/12/08/debt-collecting-machine/; “Predators Target Homes of Older Americans,” AARP Bulletin (April 2014). 8 The opinion of this author based on first-hand knowledge and observation. 9 Shortly after the close of 2014 a search of the CWRU NST data system for foreclosures in that year found 948 tax certificate foreclosures, 20 Quiet Title actions, and 13 Partition actions. Thus, in 2014 Tax Lien Certificate 12 Figure 7 Both Judicial and BOR cases are initiated by the County Prosecutor, whose resources and capacity have remained relatively constant over the past 6 years. Tax Foreclosures filed by the County Prosecutor BOR Judicial Com bined 2007 2008 2009 2010 770 957 616 948 2011 950 1,078 1,824 1,423 796 816 688 574 662 1,720 2,035 2,440 2,371 2,420 1,950 2,246 2,261 2,261 1,624 2012 1,134 2013 1,558 2014 1,687 2015 1,599 Table 3 Source: NEO CANDO at CWRU. As the demand for Board of Revision (BOR) tax foreclosure on vacant abandoned property has increased, the Prosecutor has proportionally scaled back on judicial tax foreclosure on occupied property. The disparity in these trends is clearly indicated by the red and blue lines in Figure 7, Table 3 above, and the allocations in Figure 8 below. foreclosures were 97% of the foreclosures comprising the "Other" category. A similar search conducted of 2015 data on January 20, 2016 found 1,120 tax certificate foreclosures, 33 Quiet Title actions, and 24 Partition actions, indicating that tax certificate foreclosures were 95% of the “Other” category. Given that Quiet Title and Partition actions appear to be infrequent, changes in the "Other" category of foreclosure over time are most likely due to changes in Tax Lien Certificate filings, not Quiet Title and Partition filings. 13 Figure 8 Capacity to Respond to Growing Delinquency Property tax delinquency in Cuyahoga County is climbing at an alarming rate. In just 7 years the total residential delinquency has gone from $89.9 million to $242.5 million and the average delinquency per parcel has doubled. The Cuyahoga County Treasury has recently embarked on some new initiatives, including calling upon the excellent network of local non-profit mortgage foreclosure counseling agencies to provide tax foreclosure counseling. The County has also announced plans to continue the sale of tax certificates, with new protocols intended to lessen the negative outcomes associated with those sales. These are positive steps but they may not be sufficient to address the 39,409 residential parcels that are now certified delinquent. The County Prosecutor’s capacity to initiate tax foreclosure is also critically important to addressing these delinquent properties. Table 3 on the preceding page shows that the Prosecutor’s Tax Foreclosure Unit has consistently filed approximately 2,000 to 2,400 cases per year since 2008 (BOR and Judicial combined). However, given the significant increase of delinquency since 2008, this unit’s capacity may need to be ramped up to address the problem. The following analysis puts this into perspective. Among the 39,409 parcels that have at least $1 certified tax delinquency, 11,712 of those (approximately 30%), are either vacant land or vacant residential structures and are thus eligible for BOR tax foreclosure. The remaining 27,697 parcels (approximately 70%) are believed to be occupied structures based on the US Postal vacancy data obtained by NEO CANDO. Table 4 below shows the breakdown of those parcels by type and the foreclosure remedy available to the County. As a practical matter, tax foreclosure is not typically initiated on property with only $1 certified delinquency. Accordingly, a companion table below shows the same breakdown for parcels that have at least $1,000 certified tax delinquency (Table 5). 14 Residential Parcels $1 or Greater Delinquency Residential Parcel Type Vacant Land and Buildings Count 11,712 Land 5,253 Buildings 6,459 Occupied Structures 27,697 All Parcels 39,409 Tax Foreclosure Remedy Current Annual Level BOR Tax Foreclosure 1,600 Judicial Tax Foreclosure 600 2,200 Source: NEO CANDO at Case Western Reserve University. Table 4 Residential Parcels $1,000 or Greater Delinquency Residential Parcel Type Vacant Land and Buildings Count 8,991 Land 3,132 Buildings 5,859 Occupied Structures 20,741 All Parcels 29,732 Tax Foreclosure Remedy BOR Tax Foreclosure Judicial Tax Foreclosure Current Annual Level 1,600 600 2,200 Source: NEO CANDO at Case Western Reserve University. Table 5 Table 3, along with Figures 7 and 8 on the preceding pages, demonstrate that the County Prosecutor’s Office has done a good job of increasing BOR foreclosures to address the problem of vacant tax delinquent property, doubling those cases from 770 to 1,599 between 2007 and 2015. Maintaining this level of BOR foreclosure on abandoned property is vitally important to moving these properties to the Cuyahoga Land Bank where their blighting influence can be addressed. A case can be made that addressing 1,600 of these blighted properties per year is still not enough, given the destructive impact they have on the Cuyahoga housing market and the volume of properties remaining. Yet it seems evident that increasing the BOR production to even 1,600 per year has only been made possible by cutting back on Judicial Tax foreclosure, reducing those cases to 662 in 2015. Whether viewing the 29,732 parcels with $1,000 delinquency, or the 39,409 parcels with $1 delinquency, when these parcels are aligned with the current capacity of about 2,200 cases per year, it would appear the Prosecutor’s Tax Foreclosure Unit will need additional resources in order to meet the pressing demands of both BOR foreclosure and judicial foreclosure. 15 PART 3 - VACANT PROPERTY Among the housing trends reviewed in this report, and among housing trends generally, vacant property trends are among the most difficult to measure, yet the blight that results from abandonment may be the single greatest factor that undermines housing market health. Most housing indicators can be ascertained from one or more public records sources: mortgage and tax foreclosure filings, property tax delinquency, home mortgage lending, home sale transfer prices, property tax valuation, etc. Since the foreclosure crisis began, researchers and policy makers have struggled to find ways to identify vacant structures on a neighborhood, city or county basis. There is no government records source that can be accessed to determine vacancy on a broad scale. This report discusses two methods that have been used for estimating vacancy: United States Postal Service Data and door to door surveys. C. Cuyahoga Vacancy – US Postal Service Data Starting in 2010 Case Western Reserve University (CWRU) began acquiring data from the US Postal Service based on addresses that mail carriers reported as either apparently uninhabitable or as not receiving mail for 6 months or longer. In its raw form these data do not indicate whether a structure is vacant, only whether a housing unit (address) is vacant. Researchers with NEO CANDO at CWRU then cross-reference this data with Cuyahoga County Auditor data on 1-3 family residential structures. If all addresses in a structure report vacancy, the structure is noted as vacant. If at least one address in a structure is reported as occupied, the structure is noted as occupied. The Postal data is typically received at the beginning of each quarter of the calendar year. In between quarters the count in the NEO CANDO data system is adjusted on an ongoing basis for a number of factors, the foremost being the demolition of vacant structures. Tables and charts on the following pages show 2010 thru first quarter 2016 vacancy trends for Cuyahoga regions. A detailed table of vacancies for every Cuyahoga suburb and every Cleveland neighborhood is provided in Appendix B at the end of this report. Figure 9 below shows the quarterly vacancy trend in Cuyahoga County for the past 7 years. The highest count in this period was 24,703 vacant structures in the 3 rd quarter of 2010. The count has now come down to 15,079 with the receipt of the 1st quarter data for 2016. This reduction is a positive development and likely results from two factors. First, as noted earlier in this report, mortgage foreclosures have been steadily decreasing which means fewer homes have been abandoned due to foreclosure. Second, both the City of Cleveland and the Cuyahoga Land Bank have been working hard to clear blighted homes, aided significantly over the past year by the Cuyahoga County Demolition Fund. 16 Figure 9 As with foreclosure filing trends noted earlier, vacancy and abandonment have not impacted all areas of the county equally. The greatest number of vacant structures can be found in the East Side neighborhoods of Cleveland, followed by the East Inner Suburbs (Table 6). Vacant 1-3 Family Residential Structures in Cuyahoga County 2010 - Q1 2011 - Q1 2012 - Q1 2013 - Q1 2014 - Q1 2015 - Q1 2016 - Q1 East Side of Cleveland 7,781 8,873 8,343 8,717 8,009 8,066 5,951 East Inner Suburb 5,396 6,006 5,823 6,218 6,065 6,003 4,239 Outer Suburb 2,228 2,998 2,652 3,068 2,700 2,952 1,856 West Inner Suburb 1,249 1,791 1,703 1,867 1,681 1,768 1,097 West Side of Cleveland 2,213 3,204 3,128 3,013 2,679 2,902 1,936 Cleveland 9,994 12,077 11,471 11,730 10,688 10,968 7,887 Suburbs 8,873 10,795 10,178 11,153 10,446 10,723 7,192 Cuyahoga 18,867 22,872 21,649 22,883 21,134 21,691 15,079 Source: US Postal Data and NEO CANDO at Case Western Reserve University. Counts are as of 1st quarter of each year. Table 6 Figures 10 and 11 below graphically illustrate how those two sub-areas of the county have consistently comprised an overwhelming majority of all vacant structures over the past 6 years. Considerably lower numbers of vacant structures are found in the West Inner Suburbs, the West Side of Cleveland and the Outer Suburbs. 17 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 Vacant 1-3 Family Residential Structures In Cuyahoga Regions Quarter 2010 - Quarter 2016 2010 2010 20102010 2011 2011 2011 2011 2012 20122012 2012 2013 2013 2013 2013 20142014 2014 2014 2015 2015 2015 20152016 Source US Postal Data and NEO CANDO at Case Western Reserve University. 5951 4239 1936 1856 1097 East Side of Cleveland East Inner Suburb ?West Side of Cleveland Outer Suburb ?West Inner Suburb 5,000 1000 3,000 2,000 L000 Figure 10 Location of Vacant 1-3 Family Homes In Cuyahoga County 7,000 5,951 6,000 Cleveland East Side Inner East Suburbs Cleveland West Side Outer Suburbs InnerWest Suburbs Source: NEO CAN DO at Case Western Reserve University based on Quarter 2016 US Postal Data. Figure 11 18 D. Cleveland Vacancy – Door To Door Property Condition Surveys A second method for determining vacancy involves on-site surveys of every property in a specific geographic area. One advantage of this method over the US Postal data is that surveys can be used to identify property condition in addition to vacancy, thus helping to strategically target the most distressed properties for demolition or renovation. There are, however, three limitations. First, surveying every property is costly and labor-intensive. Second, property surveyors are limited to what they can see from the sidewalk, so it may not be possible to determine vacancy or property condition with 100% reliability. Third, because of their expense, property surveys are not likely to be conducted as often as US Postal data is available, and will represent only one point in time over a year or more while the US Postal data is provided every quarter on an ongoing basis. Between 2004 and 2006 Cleveland Neighborhood Progress was a pioneer in the use of hand-held devices with cameras to conduct property condition surveys of every property in 6 target areas within 6 Cleveland neighborhoods. The results were then mapped by NEO CANDO at Case Western Reserve University. Over the next several years the City of Cleveland conducted door to door surveys of every residential property in Cleveland to identify vacant and distressed properties; these surveys were not full property condition surveys but provided valuable information on the location and extent of abandonment and distress. The last such survey was conducted by the City in 2013. In the summer of 2015 Western Reserve Land Conservancy (WRLC), in collaboration with the City of Cleveland, conducted the first ever complete property condition survey of every residential, commercial and industrial property in Cleveland. A comprehensive report on this extensive survey will be released in the coming months. What follows in Table 7 and Figure 12 is a brief overview of the residential-class properties that were surveyed for each Cleveland neighborhood. Residential-class properties, as defined by the County Fiscal Officer, include some apartment buildings with 4 or more units. The US Postal Vacancy data discussed earlier in Section C is limited to 1-3 unit residential-class properties. 19 2015 Cleveland Property Condition Survey – Sorted by Percent of Vacant Structures Neighborhood (2012 boundaries) Resid Parcels Resid % Resid Vac Lot Vac Lot Occupied Resid Resid Structure Structure Resid Vacant % Resid Resid Structure Resid Structure Structure Vacant Structure vacant D or F D or F % Resid Structure vac D or F Cleve Condem n rated A B or C Vac D or F Prior Cleve + Cleve estim ate of condem n Vac & Neighborhood (2012 A BC Distress boundaries) St.Clair-Superior 3019 1043 35% 1956 1524 432 22% 289 234 12.0% 46 280 Kinsman 2629 908 35% 1704 1399 305 18% 221 151 8.9% 50 201 245 Kinsman Glenville 11116 2362 21% 8678 7127 1551 18% 1054 757 8.7% 234 991 1249 Glenville Hough 4305 1900 44% 2330 1944 386 17% 256 196 8.4% 50 246 307 Hough Buckeye-Woodhill 2385 846 35% 1518 1269 249 16% 157 127 8.4% 48 175 220 Buckeye-Woodhill Mount Pleasant 6566 953 15% 5581 4689 892 16% 539 405 7.3% 170 575 Broadw ay-Slavic Village 9331 2170 23% 7101 5983 1118 16% 636 491 6.9% 181 672 Union-Miles 8624 1516 18% 7086 6032 1054 15% 671 494 7.0% 151 645 857 Union-Miles Collinw ood-Nottingham 4693 932 20% 3686 3204 482 13% 271 185 5.0% 84 269 510 Collinw ood-Nottingham Fairfax 2741 1193 44% 1518 1339 179 12% 135 87 5.7% 31 118 209 Fairfax Buckeye-Shaker Square 3118 312 10% 2802 2523 279 10% 106 80 2.9% 69 149 239 Buckeye-Shaker Square Lee-Seville 2501 468 19% 1994 1813 181 9% 81 56 2.8% 22 78 Central 1515 750 50% 739 674 65 9% 39 28 3.8% 8 36 Euclid-Green 1870 229 12% 1632 1498 134 8% 47 37 2.3% 26 63 Goodrich-Kirtland Pk 351 St.Clair-Superior 615 Mount Pleasant 1071 Broadw ay-Slavic Village 137 Lee-Seville 39 Central 125 Euclid-Green 998 177 18% 796 737 59 7% 23 17 2.1% 7 24 Detroit Shorew ay 3226 520 16% 2664 2472 192 7% 79 42 1.6% 31 73 156 Detroit Shorew ay Cudell 2449 221 9% 2215 2061 154 7% 59 34 1.5% 20 54 115 Cudell Clark-Fulton 2584 454 18% 2109 1963 146 7% 65 40 1.9% 17 57 139 Clark-Fulton Stockyards 3210 516 16% 2673 2488 185 7% 108 70 2.6% 33 103 208 Stockyards 698 182 26% 491 458 33 7% 25 14 2.9% 2 16 20 University Brooklyn Centre 2535 190 7% 2327 2191 136 6% 59 30 1.3% 18 48 91 Brooklyn Centre Ohio City 2096 431 21% 1618 1525 93 6% 40 22 1.4% 16 38 North Shore Collinw ood 4951 298 6% 4512 4258 254 6% 92 61 1.4% 27 88 191 North Shore Collinw ood Lee-Harvard 4796 128 3% 4579 4338 241 5% 54 40 0.9% 12 52 106 Lee-Harvard West Boulevard 5746 328 6% 5404 5176 228 4% 66 40 0.7% 31 71 160 West Boulevard Tremont 2545 623 24% 1881 1803 78 4% 50 33 1.8% 3 36 49 Tremont Bellaire-Puritas 5590 411 7% 5142 4991 151 3% 13 6 0.1% 14 20 54 Bellaire-Puritas Jefferson 6531 196 3% 6328 6146 182 3% 37 11 0.2% 17 28 73 Jefferson 11525 357 3% 11104 10827 277 2% 40 17 0.2% 13 30 98 Old Brooklyn Edgew ater 1136 33 3% 1097 1073 24 2% 4 1 0.1% 4 5 Dow ntow n 60 4 7% 49 48 1 2% 0 0 0.0% 0 0 9244 131 1% 9077 8922 155 2% 8 3 0.0% 2 5 14 11 79% 2 2 0 0% 0 0 0.0% 0 0 7 2 29% 5 5 0 0% 0 0 0.0% 0 0 University Old Brooklyn Kamm's Cuyahoga Valley Hopkins 134,354 20,795 15% 112,398 102,502 9,896 9% 5,324 3,809 3.4% 1,437 5,246 Table 7. Source: Western Reserve Land Conservancy survey, Summer 2015. City of Cleveland condemnation data, November 2015. 21 Goodrich-Kirtland Pk 60 Ohio City 13 Edgew ater 0 Dow ntow n 42 Kamm's 1 Cuyahoga Valley 0 Hopkins 7,771 20 Overall there were 134,354 residential-class parcels surveyed10. Of those, 20,795 (15%) were found to be vacant lots. There were an additional 1,161 parcels categorized as parks or parking lots that are not represented in Table 7. The survey found 112,398 parcels had a residential structure on them. Of those, 102,502 were found to be occupied and 9,896 (9%) were found to be vacant 11. The vacancy and condition results in Table 7 and Figure 12 below are consistent with the foreclosure and postal data noted earlier in this report: the highest vacancy and greatest distress were found in the East Side neighborhoods of Cleveland. Figure 12 Property conditions were rated on a five part scale: A, B, C, D and F with D and F deemed equivalent to what the City might find condemnable. Table 7 shows that 5,324 structures were rated D or F and 3,809 (3.4% of all residential structures) were found to be both vacant and rated D or F. The survey results were also cross-referenced with two important pieces of data from the City of Cleveland: condemnation 10 Some of the data sources used in this report are limited to 1 to 3 unit “residential-class” property, for example, US Postal vacancy data and median home sale data maintained by NEO CANDO at CWRU. The Cleveland survey conducted by Western Reserve Land Conservancy included all “residential-class” parcels and was not limited to 1-3 family structures. Thus the 134,354 residential-class parcels cited here is higher than the 127,151 total cited elsewhere in this report in Tables 6, 11 and 12. 11 A 9% vacancy for residential structures is high, but not as high as the 21% figure cited in a recent report issued by the Washington-based Economic Innovation Group and reported on by the NY Times and local Cleveland news media. One of the authors of that report stated during a WCPN radio interview “one in five homes in Cleveland now stands vacant”. http://wcpn.ideastream.org/news/cleveland-is-the-most-distressed-city-in-america The author failed to clarify that their study was based on “US Census housing units”, not “housing structures”, which overlooks the fact that many homes in Cleveland contain two or three “housing units”. 21 data and results of the City’s last estimate of “vacant and distressed” properties, i.e. those most likely to require demolition. When survey results were compared with the City of Cleveland’s condemnation data it was revealed that 1,437 properties that were rated A, B or C by the survey had been condemned by the City. The explanation for this discrepancy is that the surveyors were limited by what they could see from the sidewalk while city inspectors, working inside the house, could see that houses that appeared intact on the outside were unlivable on the inside. When the survey’s 3,809 vacant Ds and Fs are added to the 1,437 condemned A, B and C-rated structures, it provides an estimate of 5,246 residential structures that might require demolition. This is 2,525 less than the 7,771 the City of Cleveland estimated in 2013 (Table 7). This positive trend is similar to the reduction in US Postal Vacancy noted in the previous section of this report. This 33% reduction likely results from two factors. First, as noted in this report, foreclosures have been steadily decreasing and so has the number of vacant structures. Second, both the City of Cleveland and the Cuyahoga Land Bank have been working hard in recent years to clear blighted homes from Cleveland neighborhoods. For the first time since the foreclosure crisis began there is evidence of a net gain in the battle against blight. Furthermore, these surveys in Cleveland, combined with a similar survey conducted by Western Reserve Land Conservancy in East Cleveland, help provide a more accurate picture of the remaining blight undermining the housing market in Cuyahoga County. That picture is graphically displayed in Figure 13 below. Of the 15,079 structures believed to be vacant in Cuyahoga County, 7,279 may require demolition. This estimate is based on combining the estimates for Cleveland, East Cleveland and the balance of the Cuyahoga suburbs. As Figure 13 below demonstrates, the largest component of that number by far is in the City of Cleveland. 22 Estimate: Approximately 7,200 of the 15,079 Vacant 1-3 Family Homes In Cuyahoga County Will Require Demolition 16,000 15,079 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2'000 1,033 1,000 0 2 I All Vacant Homes Vacant Homes Likely Cleveland demolition East Cleveland Other Suburbs Demolition demolition demolition Sources: Cleveland survey conducted by Western Reserve Land Conservancy, summer 2015. East Cleveland survey conducted by Western Reserve Land Conservancy, summer 2014. Suburbs: estimate based on 587 Suburban applications for demolition funding (excluding East Cleveland) reported in NEO CAN DO as ofJanuary 26, 2016. Figure 13 23 Based on the WRLC survey conducted in East Cleveland, that suburb comprises the second largest component with a projected 1,033 residential structures requiring demolition. The third component of the projected demolition number is a very rough estimate of 1,000 for the balance of the suburbs. This estimate is based on 587 suburban applications (excluding East Cleveland) that have been submitted to the county demolition program as of January 26, 2016. It is important to note, however, that although mortgage foreclosure filings have come down, they are still at higher than normal levels and continue to be a catalyst for vacancy and blight. And, although at present only a little over 7,000 of the approximately 15,000 vacant residential structures may require demolition, the other 8,000 vacant structures that do not presently require demolition will continue to deteriorate. The likelihood that they will ultimately contribute to a higher number of required demolitions increases the longer the 7,000 most distressed structures are left unaddressed. Furthermore, as will be explained in the next section of this report, the blight from these structures continues to severely undermine median home sale prices. PART 4 - HOME SALE TRENDS A. Median Price of Arms-Length Sales Home Sale Trends Methodology The tables on the following pages present 16 years of median home sale prices from 2000 through 2015 - for every Cuyahoga suburb and for every Cleveland neighborhood. In addition, median sale prices are provided for the major sub-regions of the county: Outer Suburbs, East Inner Suburbs, West Inner Suburbs, the East Side of Cleveland and the West Side of Cleveland. The methodology used in this report attempts to address two challenges faced when attempting to describe distressed housing markets: one which tends to unrealistically pull down median home sale prices, and another which tends to do just the opposite. For more than a decade the Cuyahoga housing market has experienced an unprecedented number of foreclosures, Sheriff Sales and property transfers to foreclosing financial institutions. The recorded purchase price for these transactions may be very low or even “$0”. The large volume of these unusual transactions gives an artificially distorted view of the housing market and misrepresents what a willing buyer would pay a willing seller in a standard “arms-length” transaction. The second issue has the opposite impact and is represented by popular online home sale websites such as Trulia and Zillow which primarily rely on sales that resulted from a property being listed on the Multiple Listing Service (MLS) by a Realtor. Such sites are extremely useful for homebuyers seeking homes for sale by Realtors. However, research relying heavily on the MLS could omit many arms-length sales in distressed housing markets, painting an unrealistically high picture of median home sale prices. 24 In order to arrive at a more realistic portrayal of housing market activity in Cuyahoga County, this report follows an emerging trend established by researchers who analyze housing markets by excluding nonarms-length sales that would distort housing market value12. The arms-length sales presented in this report come from sales on 1-3 family residential properties reported by the Cuyahoga County Auditor. They are not limited to sales resulting from properties being listed with a Realtor. However, they do exclude: 1) sales taking place at a Sheriff Sale, 2) transfers to financial institutions and government agencies such as HUD and Fannie Mae, and 3) $0 dollar transactions, such as transfers between family members and close business associates. This report takes the further unprecedented step of looking at 16 years of data across more than 90 neighborhoods and suburbs in Cuyahoga County. On the following pages three tables are presented: Table 8 provides historical median home sale prices for Cleveland neighborhoods based on the latest 2012 Statistical Planning Area (SPA) neighborhood boundaries adopted by the City of Cleveland. Table 9 provides historical median home sale prices for Cuyahoga suburbs. Table 10 provides historical median home sale prices for the City of Cleveland, Cuyahoga County and five major sub-regions: the East Side of Cleveland, the West Side of Cleveland, the East Inner Suburbs, the West Inner Suburbs, and the Outer Suburbs. The highest median price in each sub-area during the 16 year period is shaded green, and the lowest median price in the period is shaded orange. For most Cleveland neighborhoods and Cuyahoga suburbs the highest median price during this 16 year period occurred in 2005. There was greater variance with the lowest median price; for most Cleveland neighborhoods the bottom was in either 2008 or 2009, with a handful of neighborhoods hitting bottom in later years. In the suburbs the peak years were generally between 2004 and 2006; the lowest median prices in the suburbs tended to be between 2011 and 2013, three to four years after Cleveland neighborhoods hit their lowest point. Two columns on the far right of each table are provided to help gauge the extent to which neighborhood and suburban sub-markets are recovering. The first of these two columns shows the 2015 median price as a percentage of the highest median price during the 16 year period. The second and farthest column to the right shows the 2015 median price as a percentage of the median price in 2000, at the beginning of this period. Each table is sorted by the 2015 median price as a percentage of the prior peak price in the 16 year period. For example, in the Cleveland table the 2015 median prices in University, Edgewater, Ohio City, Tremont, and Kamms are among the highest compared to their previous peak price, ranging from 75% to 88%. Conversely, Hough, Buckeye-Woodhill, Union-Miles, Mount Pleasant, St. Clair-Superior, Glenville, Euclid-Green, and Broadway-Slavic Village are among the lowest, recovering by 2015 only 20% or less of the peak median price they once experienced. 12 For example, see “Estimating the Effect of Demolishing Distressed Structures in Cleveland, OH, 2009-2013: Impacts on Real Estate Equity and Mortgage-foreclosure”, Nigel G. Griswold, Benjamin Calnin, Michael Schramm, Luc Anselin & Paul Boehnlein; and “The Impact of Vacant, Tax-Delinquent, and Foreclosed Property on Sales Prices of Neighboring Homes”, Stephan Whitaker and Thomas J. Fitzpatrick IV, a Federal Reserve Working Paper, 2012. 25 Median Home Sales Price 2000 – 2015: Cleveland Neighborhoods (2012 SPA boundaries) Orange = year with lowest median sale price. Green = peak year. Sorted by 2015 as % of Peak Year. MEDIAN PRICE OF ARMS LENGTH SALES Neighborhood 00 University 97,250 75,000 70,000 122,000 133,000 137,500 170,000 70,000 150,000 3,950 125,000 137,000 142,950 150,000 170,000 150,000 88% 154% University Edgew ater 98,500 103,000 107,250 116,500 123,750 132,000 128,500 126,500 56,000 89,000 82,000 58,000 61,650 65,750 115,000 115,750 88% 118% Edgew ater 94,000 135,000 140,000 103,200 118,000 149,900 111,900 127,125 110,000 119,000 125,000 83% no sales Hopkins Hopkins 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 79,150 12 13 14 15 2015 as 2015 as % of % of peak yr 2000 Neighborhood Ohio City 59,950 73,000 80,000 86,350 93,500 96,000 90,000 106,250 42,000 124,000 117,500 122,950 155,750 82,000 165,500 135,000 82% 225% Ohio City Tremont 50,000 60,250 65,500 56,000 82,750 83,035 75,500 65,000 53,000 40,000 57,500 46,000 84,950 110,858 85,000 88,000 79% 176% Tremont Kamm's 109,000 112,500 114,500 122,000 122,000 125,000 121,298 116,000 105,000 96,000 96,110 71,000 76,000 85,500 92,500 93,400 75% Dow ntow n 126,950 125,000 114,900 131,250 120,000 141,750 123,794 340,000 172,000 219,950 225,000 199,500 187,400 239,500 174,450 218,500 64% Old Brooklyn 87,500 90,000 94,000 95,000 100,000 101,158 95,000 87,000 65,000 54,900 56,300 42,800 43,000 40,000 50,000 53,000 52% 61% Old Brooklyn Detroit Shorew ay 47,000 47,000 61,500 61,500 65,000 76,000 74,730 28,900 12,500 18,500 19,500 25,000 27,000 27,050 34,000 37,000 49% 79% Detroit Shore Fairfax 37,000 34,900 35,400 59,500 30,250 78,000 77,500 9,000 3,000 3,566 10,000 10,470 10,000 15,000 22,500 36,200 46% 98% Fairfax Jefferson 76,000 80,000 81,500 83,000 83,500 91,650 84,000 66,000 39,000 40,000 35,131 27,000 29,993 30,500 35,000 42,000 46% 55% Jefferson Bellaire-Puritas 66,750 69,000 75,000 77,000 75,000 75,000 78,000 55,000 29,900 32,500 30,000 25,000 27,000 27,600 30,000 32,500 42% 49% Bellaire-Puritas Goodrich-Kirtland Pk 31,000 31,000 45,000 52,000 53,500 58,000 56,153 55,000 30,000 25,000 30,000 23,925 26,000 27,100 21,500 23,500 41% 76% Goodrich-Kirtla Buckeye-Shaker Square 77,000 75,000 82,500 85,000 83,000 86,000 90,000 25,100 8,000 8,000 13,000 21,000 25,101 21,755 25,000 35,000 39% 45% Buckeye-Shak North Shore Collinw ood 78,000 83,500 82,000 88,000 90,000 96,000 86,000 65,000 20,100 22,639 34,500 29,500 28,250 30,000 33,750 36,800 38% Central 24,750 44,500 22,000 67,500 54,000 39,900 57,500 80,020 92,900 25,500 15,000 25,000 44,900 36,000 43,250 34,250 37% West Boulevard 70,000 71,500 71,000 75,000 80,650 82,000 75,000 51,500 24,500 21,000 26,588 21,500 20,250 22,950 26,905 27,575 34% 39% West Boulevard Brooklyn Centre 57,500 65,000 62,500 70,000 68,250 75,000 67,000 34,750 17,250 20,000 18,888 16,110 15,000 16,000 22,500 25,001 33% 43% Brooklyn Centre Clark-Fulton 49,000 48,500 46,000 54,360 60,000 60,950 65,000 20,500 10,000 8,750 13,000 11,000 13,800 16,125 19,900 19,861 31% 41% Clark-Fulton Lee-Seville 62,000 60,000 60,000 58,000 63,000 74,000 60,000 28,900 9,250 8,550 12,500 12,734 13,100 16,000 15,915 21,200 29% 34% Lee-Seville Cudell 56,500 61,300 59,000 63,000 64,000 78,000 60,000 26,300 18,500 14,175 16,153 20,000 17,750 19,000 22,000 20,000 26% 35% Cudell Lee-Harvard 79,800 81,500 78,500 82,350 85,000 86,500 85,000 47,000 25,000 28,551 26,500 20,500 18,250 21,500 25,025 22,000 25% 28% Lee-Harvard Stockyards 48,000 53,200 46,950 48,000 58,000 60,000 60,450 20,000 10,000 9,240 15,444 16,000 11,000 12,000 19,750 15,000 25% 31% Stockyards Collinw ood-Nottingham 61,500 56,950 65,750 69,000 65,000 74,650 62,500 22,723 7,500 7,000 10,500 11,134 10,000 14,900 17,900 16,000 21% 26% Collinw ood-Not Kinsman 40,500 52,200 47,950 57,500 72,000 70,000 39,225 13,000 3,500 4,000 5,900 7,500 7,750 10,880 19,750 15,000 21% 37% Kinsman Glenville 52,000 63,000 60,750 58,000 66,500 82,000 62,000 17,000 4,000 5,500 6,525 9,000 12,000 11,000 16,250 16,700 20% 32% Glenville Broadw ay-Slavic Village 54,500 53,950 51,000 50,000 62,000 75,000 70,700 16,000 5,000 6,200 10,000 12,000 12,500 12,500 15,000 14,137 19% 26% Broadw ay-Slav Buckeye-Woodhill 46,000 63,800 46,000 36,450 68,000 81,000 67,000 12,000 3,050 4,200 10,623 10,000 10,163 15,000 9,850 14,875 18% 32% Buckeye-Wood Union-Miles 55,000 57,500 61,400 67,500 69,900 80,500 55,125 15,950 5,500 5,375 8,600 9,500 9,000 12,000 15,114 14,750 18% 27% Union-Miles Mount Pleasant 60,000 65,750 63,400 65,000 76,000 84,000 80,000 19,950 5,500 5,677 8,600 9,075 8,700 13,500 13,375 14,837 18% 25% Mount Pleasant Euclid-Green 63,200 67,000 68,000 74,500 68,200 84,000 66,400 28,000 7,500 8,500 13,350 14,500 8,501 17,051 14,500 13,590 16% 22% Euclid-Green Hough 43,000 36,500 35,000 44,500 45,000 80,000 66,666 8,500 2,500 3,600 5,925 7,000 13,250 11,850 12,000 11,750 15% 27% Hough St.Clair-Superior 44,100 45,000 50,000 49,450 45,500 75,000 30,950 5,800 3,000 4,000 7,500 5,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 9,632 13% 22% St.Clair-Superio 100,000 12,999 Cuyahoga Valley 86% Kamm's 172% Dow ntow n 47% North Shore Col 138% Central 0% no sales Cuyahoga Valle Table 8. Source: NEO CANDO at Case Western Reserve University. “Arms-Length Sales” are sales on 1-3 family residential homes that exclude 1) transfers taking place at Sheriff Sale, 2) transfers to a bank or federal agency, and 3) $0 dollar transactions. One to three family residential homes include condominiums. Note: in some cases an unexpected low or high value could result from a small number of sales in any given year. See the tables at Appendix B, C and D for the corresponding number of sales. 26 Median Home Sales Price 2000 – 2015: Cuyahoga Suburbs Orange = year with lowest median sale price. Green = peak year. Sorted by 2015 as % of Peak Year. MEDIAN PRICE OF ARMS LENGTH SALES Suburb 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 2015 as 2015 as % of % of peak yr 2000 Suburb Bay Village 157,500 159,450 162,000 176,000 182,000 177,000 180,000 195,000 176,000 160,000 191,000 189,000 187,900 184,250 181,750 205,000 100% 130% Bay Village Orange 283,500 295,500 303,400 275,000 338,500 295,250 318,753 315,000 279,250 227,500 278,750 259,250 295,500 286,950 339,950 360,615 100% 127% Orange Rocky River 165,000 165,000 167,000 179,000 200,000 185,000 186,750 185,000 182,250 178,500 177,500 175,000 183,000 189,450 196,750 200,000 100% 121% Rocky River Brecksville 206,450 213,750 215,000 216,500 230,000 228,250 229,000 234,900 232,500 222,355 223,000 199,500 213,000 225,000 203,000 227,500 97% 110% Brecksville Independence 180,000 195,000 191,500 190,000 217,000 220,000 214,000 204,000 202,000 182,000 184,000 163,750 185,000 180,000 200,000 212,000 96% 118% Independence Brooklyn Heights 128,050 120,000 142,000 155,000 157,375 151,000 144,500 148,900 137,500 142,000 142,550 115,000 114,000 116,750 115,000 150,000 95% 117% Brooklyn Height North Royalton 176,000 160,000 169,950 178,000 173,000 186,000 190,000 180,000 177,000 160,000 171,000 150,000 160,000 151,500 168,000 180,000 95% 102% North Royalton Fairview Park 128,500 133,750 135,000 138,000 142,500 144,000 144,250 138,450 136,000 135,000 128,500 130,000 128,600 125,950 139,000 135,000 94% 105% Fairview Park Westlake 200,000 192,000 192,000 201,750 190,000 225,000 212,500 226,000 190,000 200,000 220,000 199,000 205,000 200,175 203,000 209,000 92% 105% Westlake Lakew ood 120,000 124,000 125,000 133,000 135,000 135,000 133,000 125,089 103,000 100,000 100,110 90,000 93,500 106,000 120,000 124,000 92% 103% Lakew ood Berea 114,000 117,100 121,600 125,000 127,000 130,750 128,500 125,000 114,000 110,000 114,950 103,250 100,950 110,000 107,750 117,000 89% 103% Berea Strongsville 172,000 175,000 181,000 185,000 196,356 198,000 205,000 200,000 180,000 170,000 175,000 161,500 163,500 173,000 175,275 182,600 89% 106% Strongsville Solon 228,250 234,500 234,000 249,250 247,750 268,750 290,000 288,000 262,500 240,000 235,000 245,000 225,000 238,000 285,000 253,500 87% 111% Solon Beachw ood 251,000 230,000 250,800 255,000 285,000 268,500 262,250 250,000 225,000 235,000 238,750 201,250 226,000 230,000 242,500 248,500 87% Highland Heights 278,000 226,000 231,000 257,000 239,751 270,000 268,500 235,000 220,000 229,000 228,500 224,000 206,500 204,000 219,000 240,000 86% 86% Highland Height Broadview Heights 159,000 176,000 156,000 172,000 190,350 210,000 209,700 214,500 203,100 166,500 206,250 185,000 190,000 188,250 186,500 185,000 86% 116% Broadview Heig North Olmsted 136,500 138,000 139,000 145,000 150,000 152,500 152,000 146,500 135,000 125,000 130,000 119,250 110,250 120,000 125,950 130,000 85% Bratenahl 197,500 186,000 184,900 201,250 200,000 265,000 252,500 220,000 153,250 137,500 181,500 138,500 205,000 186,000 209,000 225,000 85% Olmsted Falls 140,000 146,000 140,000 139,900 150,000 159,750 147,500 139,500 134,900 125,000 130,000 130,000 118,600 128,500 125,110 134,000 84% Seven Hills 163,000 165,500 164,000 175,000 175,000 181,700 177,750 171,107 159,500 155,000 146,000 133,000 137,250 145,950 154,625 150,500 83% Mayfield Heights 123,000 125,000 131,250 139,500 139,250 147,000 151,000 142,000 130,000 123,000 123,500 106,500 115,000 111,750 118,450 125,000 83% 102% Mayfield Height Chagrin Falls Tow nship 200,000 233,900 195,000 239,000 221,500 260,250 233,500 297,250 250,000 241,700 261,000 200,000 262,050 283,000 275,000 245,000 82% 123% Chagrin Falls To Middleburg Heights 146,500 143,400 150,000 150,000 156,900 157,950 157,000 148,500 140,000 140,000 135,750 122,000 132,000 128,000 132,000 130,000 82% 89% Middleburg Heig Shaker Heights 182,600 190,000 200,000 210,000 215,000 215,470 200,000 199,000 145,000 134,450 170,575 175,000 165,500 167,000 186,500 176,425 82% Walton Hills 182,000 196,500 213,500 190,725 193,750 233,500 190,000 195,700 161,000 149,500 157,500 138,250 150,000 145,000 179,000 189,000 81% 104% Walton Hills Pepper Pike 345,000 336,000 374,000 347,500 422,000 470,000 408,500 423,000 335,000 347,800 371,500 370,000 320,000 377,500 375,000 375,000 80% 109% Pepper Pike Olmsted Tow nship 172,900 156,250 158,750 174,000 174,372 197,500 202,000 186,500 168,000 159,900 170,000 167,950 160,000 164,000 172,000 160,000 79% 96,000 122,000 117,500 90,688 155,000 120,000 120,500 89,900 107,000 60,000 94,000 75,450 85,000 80,000 115,397 120,000 77% 125% Oakw ood Mayfield Village 182,000 175,000 205,000 242,500 226,750 220,000 245,750 208,000 208,300 217,500 209,000 170,000 174,000 207,500 190,000 190,000 77% 104% Mayfield Village Woodmere 225,000 228,000 120,000 142,500 158,000 133,250 245,000 140,000 175,875 173,000 225,000 188,000 40,000 28,000 54,000 189,000 77% University Heights 140,250 142,000 155,000 167,000 160,000 165,450 167,500 157,900 134,413 114,000 130,000 121,000 105,000 128,125 128,250 128,300 77% Moreland Hills 369,000 383,750 311,250 320,000 340,000 392,500 370,000 487,500 375,000 330,000 326,000 275,000 357,375 344,250 294,000 370,000 76% Oakw ood 99% Beachw ood 95% North Olmsted 114% Bratenahl 96% Olmsted Falls 92% Seven Hills 97% Shaker Heights 93% Olmsted Tow ns 84% Woodmere 91% University Heigh 100% Moreland Hills 27 MEDIAN PRICE OF ARMS LENGTH SALES Suburb 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 2015 as 2015 as % of % of peak yr 2000 Suburb Lyndhurst 129,750 138,000 138,000 142,000 147,000 152,000 147,575 148,000 133,000 121,000 120,000 109,900 106,000 104,250 115,000 115,000 76% 89% Lyndhurst Brook Park 117,000 117,000 119,400 122,750 125,000 130,500 128,800 127,500 115,000 105,000 103,950 90,000 84,750 91,500 86,000 96,650 74% 83% Brook Park Parma 110,000 115,000 118,000 120,000 124,000 125,000 125,000 119,500 105,000 98,500 98,995 80,000 80,000 85,000 85,000 90,000 72% 82% Parma Parma Heights 115,000 117,000 122,000 125,000 128,000 127,850 123,000 120,500 107,600 100,000 96,900 85,000 80,400 85,250 89,900 89,950 70% 78% Parma Heights Gates Mills 463,500 360,000 526,250 400,000 416,250 411,250 425,000 450,000 368,500 391,000 350,000 410,000 330,000 330,000 390,000 363,500 69% 78% Gates Mills 937,500 1,200,000 1,150,000 1,750,000 725,000 1,400,000 810,000 1,150,000 939,563 1,375,000 1,042,500 785,000 1,200,000 69% 255,950 240,000 220,500 188,000 258,000 230,450 230,000 67% 169% Glenw illow Hunting Valley 1,250,000 974,250 1,166,100 136,000 166,500 262,000 180,000 235,000 342,500 301,000 219,500 Brooklyn 108,250 113,000 113,000 120,000 121,950 127,000 125,000 117,400 98,000 99,250 91,750 85,000 75,000 78,000 77,750 85,100 67% 79% Brooklyn Cuyahoga Heights 120,000 132,000 130,525 146,500 120,000 174,500 145,000 118,000 125,000 72,450 124,250 124,450 125,000 101,450 163,000 113,950 65% 95% Cuyahoga Heig Richmond Heights 150,000 147,750 155,500 164,000 167,000 175,000 166,445 149,900 141,250 122,000 121,500 112,250 100,000 110,000 112,000 113,000 65% 75% Richmond Heigh Bedford Heights 111,450 109,050 115,900 123,239 123,500 126,750 124,950 115,000 68,450 70,000 63,500 69,500 76,500 68,700 71,000 78,950 62% 71% Bedford Heights Bentleyville 481,000 467,500 527,250 600,000 721,250 660,000 717,794 720,000 513,375 545,000 609,750 514,000 525,000 502,500 552,500 440,000 61% 91% Bentleyville Cleveland Heights 120,000 121,000 123,250 134,200 139,000 146,000 144,000 125,000 60,000 56,000 82,950 76,425 66,000 75,000 87,925 81,250 56% 68% Cleveland Heigh South Euclid 107,000 109,300 115,000 118,750 124,000 128,250 126,500 114,900 70,000 80,000 79,900 56,000 55,000 59,000 67,000 70,000 55% 65% South Euclid 93,500 102,500 107,000 109,600 117,450 109,950 93,035 70,000 49,450 60,000 48,000 40,000 55,500 55,000 61,250 52% 70% Bedford Valley View 218,000 228,500 242,450 215,000 265,000 237,750 269,750 266,000 236,000 223,500 160,000 225,000 166,000 219,000 235,000 125,000 46% 57% Valley View North Randall 90,000 104,000 98,650 152,500 124,000 125,000 110,000 59,250 70,950 26,500 55,000 88,000 40,000 50,000 58,900 39% 65% North Randall Euclid 89,550 92,800 95,000 100,000 104,000 111,000 112,000 97,500 55,000 44,000 56,900 34,000 33,000 38,200 42,000 43,000 38% 48% Euclid Garfield Heights 89,000 92,500 93,250 98,000 99,750 105,000 106,950 90,000 47,110 32,000 39,153 31,425 33,500 34,150 39,300 40,000 37% 45% Garfield Heights Maple Heights 83,000 87,900 90,750 92,900 95,000 100,000 100,000 82,850 28,500 23,250 29,000 25,100 23,000 28,300 34,715 35,000 35% 42% Maple Heights New burgh Heights 72,500 73,500 83,000 80,450 78,000 85,000 87,500 44,000 38,000 41,025 36,950 17,300 27,500 36,050 50,000 30,089 34% 42% New burgh Heig Highland Hills 73,500 63,000 85,000 70,750 98,969 126,000 61,500 33,575 18,500 13,000 26,001 21,000 13,300 48,900 35,000 38,650 31% 53% Highland Hills Warrensville Heights 75,950 79,900 72,900 74,900 86,000 90,000 84,900 57,500 20,750 20,000 25,000 29,250 24,800 34,400 33,350 26,000 29% 34% Warrensville He East Cleveland 62,000 59,000 56,000 66,575 75,000 79,000 59,050 11,500 2,500 3,000 4,800 6,417 10,900 8,500 7,970 12,500 16% 20% East Cleveland Linndale 37,900 129,000 120,000 95,000 27,625 6,750 4,312 43,000 20,950 12,000 30,500 19,000 15% 50% Linndale Bedford 87,400 245,000 96% Hunting Valley Glenw illow Table 9. Source: NEO CANDO at Case Western Reserve University. “Arms-Length Sales” are sales on 1-3 family residential homes that exclude 1) transfers taking place at Sheriff Sale, 2) transfers to a bank or federal agency, and 3) $0 dollar transactions. One to three family residential homes include condominiums. Note: in some cases an unexpected low or high value could result from a small number of sales in any given year. See the tables at Appendix B, C and D for the corresponding number of sales. 28 Median Home Sales Price 2000 – 2015: Cuyahoga Regions Orange = year with lowest median sale price. Green = peak year. Sorted by 2015 as % of Peak Year. MEDIAN PRICE OF ARMS LENGTH SALES Region 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 2015 as 2015 as % of % of peak yr 2000 Region Outer Suburb 153,000 157,000 158,000 165,000 169,950 175,000 173,000 170,000 155,000 145,000 155,000 142,000 142,500 148,000 150,000 156,000 89% West Inner Suburb 118,400 121,000 124,500 128,000 130,000 133,000 130,000 126,900 114,250 107,500 107,000 93,950 94,500 100,000 105,000 110,000 83% 102% Outer Suburb 93% West Inner Sub Cuyahoga 102,000 107,000 110,000 115,000 115,911 118,000 115,000 104,000 61,550 70,000 80,000 72,000 75,000 80,000 84,500 85,500 72% 84% Cuyahoga West Side of Cleveland 73,000 78,000 81,000 83,000 85,650 89,000 85,000 65,000 35,000 38,000 37,400 32,850 33,500 35,000 40,000 44,500 50% 61% West Side of Cl East Inner Suburb 94,900 98,000 100,000 106,150 108,900 115,700 114,000 97,500 42,000 40,976 54,800 45,000 43,150 47,000 52,600 53,000 46% 56% East Inner Subu Cleveland 65,500 70,000 73,700 75,000 79,000 84,588 79,900 36,000 9,900 12,975 19,125 21,300 22,000 24,000 26,000 28,000 33% 43% Cleveland East Side of Cleveland 59,900 62,000 63,900 66,000 71,000 80,000 72,000 20,000 5,655 6,700 10,500 13,000 13,612 16,200 17,750 18,400 23% 31% East Side of Cle Unknow n Cuy Region 89,000 91,500 99,000 102,200 113,000 110,000 110,000 106,000 86,900 83,245 70,000 72,250 75,000 81,500 72% 92% Unknow n Cuy R 82,000 60,000 Table 10. Source: NEO CANDO at Case Western Reserve University. “Arms-Length Sales” are sales on 1-3 family residential homes that exclude 1) transfers taking place at Sheriff Sale, 2) transfers to a bank or federal agency, and 3) $0 dollar transactions. One to three family residential homes include condominiums. Note: in some cases an unexpected low or high value could result from a small number of sales in any given year. See the tables at Appendix B, C and D for the corresponding number of sales. “Unknown Cuyahoga Region”: A small number of sales, approximately 100 to 300 in each year, are on properties that do not have a geographic identifier recognized by the NEO CANDO data system. These are not included in the neighborhood, suburb or sub-region counts and median values. They are included in the Cuyahoga counts and median values. 29 Housing market recovery in the suburbs stands in stark contrast to the City of Cleveland. By 2015 thirty six (36) suburbs had recovered 70% or more of their prior peak median home sale price. Only 6 Cleveland neighborhoods had recovered this much value by 2015. The contrast is just as great when viewing this from the other direction: which communities had lost 70% of their median price (recovered only 30% or less by 2015)? As of 2015 fifteen (15) Cleveland neighborhoods (12 on the East Side) had recovered only 30% or less of the peak median price they once had, while only 3 suburbs had recovered so little (Lindale 15%, East Cleveland 16% and Warrensville Heights 29%). The charts on the following pages provide a more graphic presentation of the trends and demonstrate that housing market recovery varies significantly by location. Figure 14 The most striking, and positive, trend is that the dramatic decline in median home sale prices has stopped across all Cuyahoga sub-regions (Figure 14 above). The second most positive trend is that median sale prices in all but two areas are on an upward trajectory. (The East Inner Suburbs, and Cuyahoga County overall, appear to have leveled off in the last two years.) Beyond these two positive trends the regional disparities are very significant. At their peak in 2005 the median home sale prices for Cuyahoga County ($118,000) and Cleveland City ($84,588) were only about $33,000 apart. As of 2015 that disparity had widened to $57,500, with Cuyahoga at $85,500 and Cleveland at only $28,000. 30 Similarly in 2005 the peak median home sale prices for the Outer Suburbs ($175,000) and the East Inner Suburbs ($115,700) were $59,000 apart. But by 2015 that disparity had increased to $103,000, with the Outer Suburbs at $156,000 and the East Inner Suburbs at $53,000. Both the Outer Suburbs and the West Inner Suburbs have recovered more than 80% of their peak median price and more than 90% of their 2000 median price. At least with respect to housing price, the foreclosure crisis is more or less over in the Outer Suburbs and the West Inner Suburbs. The East Inner Suburbs and both the East and West Side of Cleveland experienced a far greater drop in median home sale price after 2005, and have recovered far less. As of 2015 the median home sale price on the East Side of Cleveland, at $18,400, was still only 23% of the peak price in 2005 ($80,000) and only 31% of the peak price in 2000 ($59,900). Another example of the disparity is shown in the following chart which compares two Outer Suburbs, two Inner Suburbs and two Cleveland East Side neighborhoods. Figure 15 The outer suburb of Orange experienced a decline in median home sale price between 2007 and 2009, but then rebounded and in fact is now at its highest point in the 16 year period. The trend in Westlake exhibits little of the decline that was evident throughout the county at the height of the foreclosure crisis and Westlake ends 2015 only 8% below its previous peak price. The two Inner Suburbs of Parma and South Euclid each began the 16 year period at a little over $100,000 in median price and both 31 peaked at about $125,000 in 2005. Both reached their bottom price in 2012 but South Euclid experienced a greater drop after 2005. Both are showing moderate increases since 2012. The Cleveland East Side neighborhoods of St. Clair Superior and Broadway Slavic Village have had similar price trends, experiencing dramatic drops in median home sale price from highs of $75-80,000 in 2005, to lows of $3,000-5,000 in 2008-09. The recovery in these neighborhoods is very slow and both St. Clair Superior ($9,632) and Broadway Slavic Village ($14,137) have lost over 70% of their median price from 2000, and over 80% of their median price from their peak year in 2005. While Figure 14 demonstrates that the 5 sub-regions of the county have different levels of housing recovery, there are also variances within sub-regions as shown by Figures 16 and 17 below. For example, within two of the county’s sub-regions, the East Inner Suburbs and the West Side of Cleveland, significant disparities in median home price can be found. While the general trend is consistent, with a peak followed by a dramatic drop, then followed by some measure of recovery, the amount of the drop and recovery varies significantly. At the low end of the East Inner Suburbs, East Cleveland’s median home sale trend looks similar to the hardest hit East Side neighborhoods of Cleveland. At the other end is Shaker Heights which has recovered 97% of its 2000 median price and 82% of its peak price in 2005. Similarly University Heights has recovered 91% of its 2000 median price and 77% of its peak price in 2006. Figure 16 32 A look at sample neighborhoods on the West Side of Cleveland also reveals significant differences (Figure 17 below). In 2000 two of the strongest neighborhoods were Old Brooklyn and Kamms, with median prices of $87,500 and $109,000. Their trends followed a similar path through their peak in 2005 and their low point in 2011, but after that their trends diverge with Kamms recovering more in the past few years and Old Brooklyn less. Six West Side neighborhoods began this period grouped together in the $50,000 to $70,000 range: Ohio City, Tremont, Detroit Shoreway, Bellaire Puritas, Cudell and Stockyards. Two of these neighborhoods – Ohio City and Tremont – have had volatile ups and downs but have generally experienced significant recovery and the 2015 median price for both is higher than their 2000 price. The median prices in Cudell and Stockyards have experienced very little recovery with median prices remaining low at $20,000 and $15,000. Bellaire Puritas is on a gradual upward trend in recent years but is still below its prior peak price and its 2000 level. The median price in Detroit Shoreway reached a very low point ($12,500) in 2008 but has been on a continual upward trajectory since then and has recovered 79% of its median price in 2000. Figure 17 As noted earlier the East Side of Cleveland has experienced the greatest concentration of foreclosure, housing vacancy and blight in Cuyahoga County. The substantial impact of this devastation can be seen in the dramatic drop in median home sale prices over the past 16 years (Figure 18 below). In the span of just two years median prices for Glenville, Broadway-Slavic Village, Mount Pleasant and Union-Miles 33 went from $75,000-80,000 down to $5,000 or less. On the positive side, the dramatic decline in median price on the East Side of Cleveland appears to have stopped and most neighborhoods are on a gradual upward trend, but their 2015 median prices are still far below both their prior peak price and their 2000 levels. One exception is the Fairfax neighborhood, where the 2015 median of $38,400 is nearly back to the 2000 level of $39,500, although still far below the prior peak of $78,000 in 2005. This exceptional increase in Fairfax over the past several years is related to a change in neighborhood boundaries, explained in the next section of this report. Figure 18 Cleveland Neighborhood Boundaries In 2012 the City of Cleveland Planning Commission adopted new neighborhood Statistical Planning Area (SPA) boundaries. The median home sales cited in this report are provided for those boundaries. While most neighborhood boundaries were relatively unchanged, there were a number of significant changes that are worth pointing out in this report.  The Corlett neighborhood was absorbed into the Union-Miles neighborhood.  The Forest Hills neighborhood was absorbed into the Glenville neighborhood.  North and South Broadway were combined into the Broadway-Slavic Village neighborhood.  The Lee-Miles neighborhood was split into the Lee-Harvard and Lee-Seville neighborhoods. 34   The Riverside neighborhood was renamed Hopkins. The Industrial Valley neighborhood was renamed Cuyahoga Valley, and expanded to include industrial areas all along the Cuyahoga River up to Lake Erie. It now includes parts of former South Broadway, Tremont, Downtown and Ohio City.  The Fairfax neighborhood was expanded north from Euclid to Chester Avenue. In one case these boundary changes resulted in a significant increase in median home sale price. As a result of the expansion of Fairfax one block north to Chester Avenue the neighborhood now includes the relatively new Villas at Woodhaven townhouse development in close proximity to Cleveland Clinic. In the past couple of years some of these homes have sold for $150,000 to $200,000, boosting the median home sales price in the Fairfax neighborhood. However, the majority of the homes in the neighborhood, located within the original boundary, still have median prices far below both their 2005 peak and their baseline from 2000. Figure 19 below shows the trends for the new and old Fairfax boundaries. Figure 19 B. Vacancy and Home Price Trends 1. Cleveland Neighborhood Vacancy and Median Home Sales The results from the Cleveland neighborhood vacancy survey cited earlier in this report provide an opportunity to consider the relationship between vacancy and median home sale prices. The charts on the following page compare the vacancy trend (Figure 20) with the price trend (Figure 21). In the 35 price chart (bottom half) the shading of four of the most atypical markets in Cleveland is muted for illustration. Although the trend for home sale price (bottom half) is not as steep as the trend for vacancy (top half), lower median sale prices do tend to be in the neighborhoods with highest vacancy, and higher median sale prices tend to be in the neighborhoods with lowest vacancy. Figures 20 and 21 36 2. Cuyahoga County Vacancy and Median Home Sales When Postal Vacancy data is compared to median home sale price the trends for Cuyahoga subregions follow the same patterns observed in City of Cleveland neighborhoods. Table 11 below not only shows the quantity of vacant structures by sub-region, but also shows the concentration of vacancy, as a percent of the parcels in each sub-region. Similar to the patterns observed earlier in this report, the Outer Suburbs and West Inner Suburbs have the lowest concentration of vacancy, and the highest median sale prices. By contrast, the highest concentration of vacancy and the lowest median sale prices are found in the City of Cleveland and the East Inner Suburbs. Vacant 1-3 Family Residential Homes and 2015 Cuyahoga Median Home Sale Price Location Outer Suburbs West Inner Suburbs Cuyahoga East Inner Suburbs Cleve West Residential Class Parcels Postal Vacancy Percent Postal Median Sale 1-3 Fam ily 1st Quarter 2016 Vacancy Price 2015 166,629 1,856 1.11% $ 156,000 72,936 1,097 1.50% $ 110,000 451,146 15,079 3.34% $ 85,500 84,430 4,239 5.02% $ 53,000 58,979 1,936 3.28% $ 44,500 Cleveland 127,151 7,887 6.20% $ 28,000 Cleve East 68,172 5,951 8.73% $ 18,400 Source: NEO CANDO at Case Western Reserve University, and US Postal vacancy data. The count of parcels excludes 1,794 1-3 family residential parcels designated in NEO CANDO as "unknow n geography". These comprised a relatively insignificant 0.04% of all residential parcels. Table 11 C. Volume of Arms-Length Sales In addition to median price another important indicator of housing market health and recovery is the number of arms-length home sales. As noted earlier in this report, arms-length sales are traditional sales between a buyer and a seller, in contrast to sales taking place at a foreclosure auction and other post-foreclosure sales to banks and government agencies. As Figure 22 below indicates, the number of these relatively normal sales began to decline as foreclosures were reaching their peak. With the exception of a brief spike on the East Side of Cleveland (which also shows up in the Cleveland trend line) and the East Inner Suburbs between 2007 and 2008, the number of arms-length sales in all sub-regions of the county dropped significantly and reached bottom between 2010 and 2011 13. It is a positive sign that this type of healthy sale activity is increasing. 13 The spike in arms-length sales between 2007 and 2008 may have been fueled by subprime and predatory lending just prior to the collapse of the financial markets in 2008. 37 Figure 22 Tables containing the number of sales for each year in each neighborhood and suburb can be found in Appendix C, D and E. D. Single Family Sales vs 1-3 Family Sales This report has focused on sales of residential one-to-three family homes. Those include traditional single family homes, two family homes (side-by-side or up-and-down doubles), as well as two family homes with a third unit in an attic or basement. A legitimate question might be “would an analysis limited to only single family homes produce different results?” A separate analysis was conducted for single family homes which revealed the following:  The same 16 year trends observed for 1-3 family homes were also observed for single family: a peak in median sale prices between 2005 and 2006, followed by a drop to a low point between 2008 and 2012, then some measure of recovery. See Figure 23 below.  At the Cuyahoga sub-region level, most noticeably in the Outer Suburbs and the West Inner Suburbs, the 2015 single family median price for those areas was 4-6% higher than the median price for 1-3 family. (Figure 23) This was less true for the East and West Side of Cleveland, where the 2015 single family median price for those two sub-regions was only 1-2% higher than the median for 1-3 family.  At the neighborhood and suburb level single family median prices generally varied either up or down by less than 10% from the medians for 1-3 family. Tables 22, 23 and 24 in Appendix F at 38  the end of this report provide the 2015 median prices for both single family and 1-3 family homes, for every Cleveland neighborhood and every Cuyahoga suburb. In a smaller number of neighborhoods and suburbs the variance was more significant. A handful of Cleveland neighborhoods, particularly where new homes have been built in recent years, saw single family median prices that were significantly higher. Those neighborhoods included Central, University, Fairfax, and Tremont. However those differences should be interpreted with caution as some of those areas also had low single family home sale activity. Figure 23 E. Home Sale Trends – Final Thoughts and Suggestions for Further Research 1. Sub-neighborhood Target Area Research One of the chief limitations this report has attempted to overcome is that home sale trends are generally reported in the news media at the regional or county level, and not at the neighborhood or suburb level. Looking at the County as a whole it would appear that significant housing market recovery is underway, but, as this report has demonstrated, that tends to obscure the fact that many 39 neighborhoods and suburbs have barely begun to recover. However, it might be reasonable to ask: would looking at even smaller sub-areas reveal stronger pockets of housing recovery? There are targeted redevelopment initiatives underway in smaller sub-areas of many neighborhoods where newly built or newly renovated homes could sell for more than homes in other parts of the neighborhood. Examples include developments in Detroit Shoreway, Broadway Slavic Village, Central and others. These are important efforts that seek to serve as a catalyst to promote broader market recovery. Future research at a micro level would be reasonable but should not replace research at the neighborhood level. Ultimately, the success of smaller target areas should be measured against the impact they have on the balance of the neighborhood. 2. Impact of Foreclosure on Median Price of Properties Not Foreclosed On The median sale prices reported in some of the East Side neighborhoods and suburbs are shockingly low. It might be tempting to conclude that this is because all of these properties have gone through foreclosure. A not uncommon opinion expressed about some East Side areas is that “there have been so many foreclosures there is nothing left to foreclose on”. A review of Sheriff Sale data over the past 16 years suggests that this is more myth than fact. Table 12 below shows both the percent of residential parcels that have had at least one Sheriff Sale scheduled at any time since 2000 (and some could have had 2, 3 or more), and the percent of parcels that had no Sheriff Sale scheduled at any time since 200014. Given the extent to which mortgage foreclosure has impacted Cuyahoga County over the past 16 years, some may be surprised that the vast majority (85%) of all parcels in Cuyahoga County have had no Sheriff Sale in this period. Even in the neighborhoods hardest hit by foreclosure the majority of parcels have had no Sheriff Sale activity. In the Broadway Slavic Village neighborhood, once considered by many as the epicenter of the foreclosure crisis in America, two thirds of all parcels have had no Sheriff Sale since 2000. In the East Side of Cleveland, the Cuyahoga sub-region with the lowest median home sale prices, 72% of all parcels have had no Sheriff Sale since 2000. 14 The ideal method for conducting this analysis would be to look at the percent of parcels that have had a foreclosure filing since 2000, not the percent that have had a sheriff sale in that period; however, parcel identification is not available in foreclosure filings before 2006. Sheriff sales are identified with parcels back to 2000, and while not ideal, are used here as a proxy for assessing foreclosure activity. 40 Cuyahoga Residential Parcels - Percent With No Sheriff Sale January 1, 2000 - December 31, 2015 1-3 Family Residential Class Parcels Geography Number Parcels that had at least 1 Sheriff Sale Scheduled Between 1/1/00 and 12/31/15 Number Percent of Parcels With No Shf Sale Percent 2000 - 2015 Cleveland 127,151 30,535 24% 76% Cuyahoga 451,146 66,048 15% 85% Cleveland East Side 68,172 18,955 28% 72% East Inner Suburbs 84,430 18,132 21% 79% Cleveland West Side 58,979 11,580 20% 80% West Inner Suburbs 72,936 6,016 8% 92% 166,629 10,941 7% 93% Mt Pleasant 5,981 1,935 32% 68% Broadway Slavic Village 8,296 2,659 32% 68% Glenville 9,745 2,837 29% 71% 11,798 2,051 17% 83% 5,515 2,021 37% 63% Maple Hts 10,324 2,989 29% 71% Garfield Hts 11,645 2,525 22% 78% Euclid 16,642 3,628 22% 78% Parma 29,955 2,571 9% 91% Sub-Regions Outer Suburbs Cleveland Neighborhoods Old Brooklyn Suburbs East Cleveland Source: NEO CANDO at Case Western Reserve University. Parcel counts and Sheriff Sales searched on 1/21/2016. Residential = parcels classified as Residential or Residential Exempt. Includes sheriff sales resulting from both mortgage and tax foreclosure. Table 12 The severe drop in home sale prices is not because all of the homes with depressed prices have been in foreclosure. It is more likely that the relatively small number of foreclosed homes, and the blight associated with them, has had a disproportionate impact on the majority of homes that have not been foreclosed on. Figure 24 below offers an alternate view of the median sale prices for homes on the East Side of Cleveland; it compares the median price for the 28% of homes that have had a Sheriff Sale in the past 15 years to the median price of the 72% of homes that have no Sheriff Sale in their history in that period. Although the homes that have not been tainted by foreclosure and Sheriff Sale have prices 67% higher than those that have been tainted, it would appear they have nonetheless been negatively impacted by their proximity to the foreclosed and abandoned homes in the area. 41 Figure 24 Further research can and should be done to explore the median price trends for properties that have not had a foreclosure or Sheriff sale in their history. In all sub-regions of the county this would appear to be the majority of properties, yet these properties may have been negatively impacted by the foreclosures around them. A case could be made that the median price trends for the properties untouched by foreclosure in each sub-region will be the best metric for measuring market recovery. The housing market can only truly recover when these properties recover. 3. Measuring Access to Home Mortgage Loans In the decades preceding the passage of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) by Congress in 1977, the banking industry frequently denied mortgage loans in predominantly African American urban neighborhoods, fueling decades of disinvestment. Congress responded to this practice of “red-lining” by requiring banks to meet the credit needs of these underserved communities; but Congress also mandated that they do so by employing “safe and sound” loan underwriting. Throughout the 1980s and most of the 1990s urban communities experienced an increase in homeownership based on safe and sound loans that had low rates of default. At some point between 1995 and 2000 the lending industry began to see opportunities to maximize lending in urban communities by making sub-prime loans and doing so in ways which were no longer “safe and sound”. The result of this ill-advised practice, which eventually became wide-spread in the lending industry, was a monumental foreclosure and economic crisis which led to the housing market collapse experienced in places like Cuyahoga County. This report has documented some of the outcomes of that collapse – an unprecedented reduction in home sale 42 prices and a corresponding reduction in normal arms-length sale transactions. The demand for home loans has also fallen in this period. However, this report also demonstrates that declining home sale prices in the most hard-hit communities appear to have leveled off and are beginning to recover. As that positive trend continues there will be increasing demand for, and need for, safe and sound home mortgage credit to rebuild communities. Going forward there will also be a need for further research that documents by what means and to what extent the banking industry is meeting that need. 43 Appendix A: Mortgage Foreclosure Filings City of Cleveland Mortgage Foreclosure Filings 2006 - 2015 Red shading = highest number of filings. Green shading = low est number of filings. Cuyahoga Region West Side of Cleveland Neighborhood 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Brooklyn Centre 93 90 111 92 65 72 62 49 38 34 Clark-Fulton 164 164 167 134 107 101 87 63 38 27 Cudell 138 142 119 107 96 73 56 56 49 31 Detroit-Shorew ay 153 187 129 152 96 103 69 59 49 32 Edgew ater 42 50 47 39 43 40 43 24 16 15 Jefferson 192 196 230 234 240 256 211 162 118 96 Kam m s Corners 59 100 110 129 150 123 146 88 83 60 Ohio City 41 57 64 59 44 39 19 25 21 9 Old Brooklyn 263 309 350 362 354 319 382 243 181 166 Puritas-Longm ead 201 215 204 220 201 189 177 111 95 88 Riverside 31 32 47 56 48 46 46 23 22 20 Stockyards 114 113 109 93 53 61 67 27 28 21 Trem ont 38 36 46 48 34 25 22 13 12 12 West Boulevard 191 193 225 189 198 162 162 99 117 66 Buckeye-Shaker 229 192 145 145 90 105 103 66 52 47 Central 19 28 39 26 24 52 47 30 29 22 Corlett 316 321 259 179 174 138 152 90 75 87 3 6 12 10 12 4 3 1 2 5 Euclid-Green 116 106 87 61 59 61 61 40 36 19 Dow ntow n East Side of Cleveland 2006 Fairfax 112 86 65 48 55 37 39 22 37 19 Forest Hills 291 307 226 132 129 99 103 48 37 35 Glenville 441 399 287 190 168 124 157 91 77 70 Goodrich-Kirtland Park 18 21 20 10 10 16 14 8 7 1 Hough 157 171 121 64 77 56 78 37 43 28 Industrial Valley 8 8 5 7 3 3 3 0 1 0 Kinsm an 66 53 17 12 20 5 9 4 5 3 Lee-Miles 271 315 264 244 253 184 216 155 133 108 Mt. Pleasant 429 418 346 212 172 164 195 111 88 89 North Broadw ay 215 198 115 85 52 37 37 27 24 10 North Collinw ood 243 269 287 235 249 184 221 144 93 68 South Broadw ay 391 459 348 284 263 204 196 134 101 73 South Collinw ood 303 307 256 172 156 116 126 87 68 42 St. Clair-Superior 179 183 101 80 48 58 59 33 25 21 Union-Miles 332 332 226 138 114 105 105 54 53 40 University 20 29 13 12 16 9 8 9 1 6 Woodland Hills 192 148 123 72 62 49 53 37 37 28 Table 13. Source: NEO CANDO at Case Western Reserve University. 44 Outer Suburbs Mortgage Foreclosure Filings 2006 - 2015 Red shading = highest number of filings. Green shading = low est number of filings. Cuyahoga Region Outer Suburb Neighborhood 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Bay Village 37 67 78 79 71 59 59 50 16 26 Beachw ood 24 32 32 40 39 29 40 19 17 22 Bedford 133 159 158 174 174 174 185 100 73 70 Bedford Hts. 85 109 96 92 125 87 120 61 62 50 Bentleyville 1 0 1 2 5 6 5 0 0 0 Berea 92 100 116 131 129 93 103 76 61 66 Brecksville 35 33 32 52 45 46 36 25 25 13 Broadview Hts. 46 49 61 73 76 67 74 52 32 30 Chagrin Falls Tw p. 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chagrin Falls Village 12 12 14 16 24 24 14 12 13 4 Gates Mills 9 2 12 13 10 11 9 5 7 6 Glenw illow 11 11 15 9 5 2 8 6 2 3 Highland Hills 5 7 6 6 9 3 5 0 1 1 Highland Hts. 22 23 22 39 36 24 36 18 10 18 Hunting Valley 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 0 2 0 Independence 25 20 17 22 23 18 22 12 8 5 Lyndhurst 49 66 97 97 106 104 110 56 53 43 Mayfield Hts. 54 54 76 82 90 78 105 68 40 46 Mayfield Village 12 10 9 9 14 12 15 7 6 8 Middleburg Hts. 35 37 51 80 67 65 71 43 44 26 Moreland Hills 6 11 10 13 14 12 14 6 7 5 North Olm sted 110 135 172 204 192 181 186 147 112 82 8 4 7 5 6 2 4 5 5 7 North Royalton 104 105 122 160 166 153 145 88 77 75 Oakw ood 45 46 55 56 55 48 56 28 25 14 North Randall Olm sted Falls 55 66 61 64 59 81 97 57 42 24 Olm sted Tw p. 44 54 62 84 79 75 65 43 38 36 Orange 16 18 32 23 17 21 23 17 15 6 Parm a Hts. 74 78 118 135 129 130 127 103 78 75 Pepper Pike 19 22 23 28 24 12 21 13 11 10 Richm ond Hts. 65 61 80 92 110 80 110 76 49 48 Seven Hills 23 45 31 33 54 47 49 31 32 26 Solon 103 89 108 100 112 123 104 52 53 42 Strongsville 108 144 159 178 194 196 183 120 85 79 University Hts. 75 73 85 86 75 75 89 50 38 46 Valley View 6 2 4 10 9 11 5 10 5 4 Walton Hills 3 5 9 6 11 8 6 9 5 7 Westlake 65 99 95 133 128 111 124 71 54 60 Woodm ere 1 3 2 9 5 7 7 1 2 1 Table 14. Source: NEO CANDO at Case Western Reserve University. 45 Inner Suburbs Mortgage Foreclosure Filings 2006 - 2015 Red shading = highest number of filings. Green shading = low est number of filings. Cuyahoga Region Neighborhood Bratenahl East Inner Suburb West Inner Suburb 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 7 16 14 27 30 7 11 14 10 2 Cleveland Hts. 485 508 525 495 499 448 453 260 232 189 Cuyahoga Hts. 0 2 4 5 5 6 0 1 0 0 East Cleveland 501 431 323 168 174 109 137 79 69 58 Euclid 523 639 714 659 738 644 707 481 370 335 Garfield Hts. 377 418 419 446 445 424 467 279 239 210 Maple Hts. 474 536 600 491 540 429 463 274 213 178 New burgh Hts. 22 30 21 20 28 18 22 30 9 9 Shaker Hts. 190 235 257 228 244 218 208 138 119 134 South Euclid 230 261 310 336 344 299 350 194 153 140 Warrensville Hts. 165 180 162 153 137 113 111 92 89 55 Brooklyn 37 43 53 71 72 81 54 43 45 33 Brooklyn Hts. 6 7 4 6 8 5 9 6 4 2 Brookpark 94 133 153 147 148 126 133 129 102 66 Fairview Park 59 58 72 90 81 77 70 57 44 34 Lakew ood 247 296 311 410 323 332 300 182 156 129 4 0 1 0 3 1 2 0 1 0 Parm a 364 460 482 555 530 527 559 453 299 294 Rocky River 43 73 79 92 86 79 69 49 51 28 2013 2014 2015 Linndale Table 15. Source: NEO CANDO at Case Western Reserve University. Totals and Sub-Regions Mortgage Foreclosure Filings 2006 - 2015 Red shading = highest number of filings. Green shading = low est number of filings. Cuyahoga Region Neighborhood Unknow n Region Unknow n neighborhood 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 213 206 137 81 69 95 76 84 149 122 TOTAL CUYAHOGA 11729 12625 12090 11248 10927 9734 10167 6652 5450 4600 CLEVELAND CITY 6071 6240 5320 4332 3935 3419 3534 2270 1891 1498 SUBURBS 5445 6179 6633 6835 6923 6220 6557 4298 3410 2980 East Side of Cleveland 4351 4356 3362 2418 2206 1810 1985 1228 1024 821 2974 3256 3349 3028 3184 2715 2929 1842 1503 1310 1720 1884 1958 1914 1729 1609 1549 1042 867 677 854 1070 1155 1371 1251 1228 1196 919 702 586 1617 1853 2129 2436 2488 2277 2432 1537 1205 1084 East Inner Suburbs Cuyahoga Sub-Regions West Side of Cleveland West Inner Suburbs Outer Suburbs Table 16. Source: NEO CANDO at Case Western Reserve University. 46 Appendix B: US Postal Vacancy for Neighborhoods and Suburbs Cleveland Neighborhood Postal Vacancy: First Quarter 2010 - 2016 Neighborhood 2010 Q1 2011 Q1 2012 Q1 2013 Q1 2014 Q1 2015 Q1 2016 Q1 Bellaire-Puritas 226 340 291 317 298 270 189 Broadway-Slavic Village 989 1,298 1,267 1,317 1,102 1,111 705 Brooklyn Centre 120 224 203 191 217 259 174 Buckeye-Shaker Square 170 215 199 212 233 237 127 Buckeye-Woodhill 250 306 263 269 259 225 123 Central 140 143 134 138 115 82 43 Clark-Fulton 127 212 201 224 189 194 93 Collinwood-Nottingham 581 641 639 727 626 619 396 Cudell 149 205 217 217 198 225 144 Cuyahoga Valley 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 Detroit Shoreway 255 317 347 351 284 324 187 Downtown 22 22 14 13 12 7 Edgewater 50 58 75 74 65 84 40 Euclid-Green 163 194 170 175 176 163 132 Fairfax 364 424 375 347 319 285 110 Glenville 1,844 1,940 1,971 2,227 2,053 2,225 1,530 Goodrich-Kirtland Pk 71 92 88 78 79 91 55 Hopkins 1 1 Hough 449 534 505 537 516 482 304 Jefferson 229 312 340 344 309 247 149 Kamm's 142 274 287 234 215 181 109 Kinsman 281 352 289 278 282 259 150 Lee-Harvard 171 273 247 234 267 283 188 Lee-Seville 210 250 214 210 228 278 179 Mount Pleasant 541 787 734 748 815 832 518 North Shore Collinwood 310 417 430 489 452 465 320 Ohio City 110 154 139 136 123 145 73 Old Brooklyn 230 428 437 426 407 513 330 St.Clair-Superior 435 543 535 531 506 457 297 Stockyards 172 258 263 293 273 270 144 Tremont 130 145 136 113 100 106 69 Union-Miles 868 1,040 1,037 1,097 1,040 1,133 748 University 48 48 45 52 49 41 24 West Boulevard 283 388 383 396 355 385 235 Cleveland Sub-total 10,133 12,837 12,478 12,999 12,165 12,481 7,887 Source: NEO CANDO at Case Western Reserve University. Table 17. 47 Cuyahoga Suburban Postal Vacancy: First Quarter 2010 - 2016 Suburb 2010 Q1 2011 Q1 2012 Q1 2013 Q1 2014 Q1 2015 Q1 2016 Q1 Bay Village 114 146 118 115 122 152 86 Beachwood 42 61 46 53 41 44 28 Bedford 181 200 186 256 230 207 139 Bedford Heights 76 85 88 108 102 106 53 Bentleyville 4 5 4 8 7 12 7 Berea 79 166 139 169 151 166 77 Bratenahl 39 35 28 21 17 25 19 Brecksville 38 69 65 65 66 61 29 Broadview Heights 55 84 73 78 89 82 49 Brook Park 100 149 143 163 161 196 101 Brooklyn 43 70 97 91 104 111 73 Brooklyn Heights 1 5 8 6 4 12 7 Chagrin Falls Township 30 28 24 35 30 41 28 Cleveland Heights 752 826 745 787 760 761 452 Cuyahoga Heights 4 5 6 3 3 7 4 East Cleveland 1473 1612 1581 1702 1646 1630 1136 Euclid 1095 1122 1292 1450 1421 1257 880 Fairview Park 102 107 88 145 121 136 92 Garfield Heights 627 748 726 841 827 906 573 Gates Mills 70 74 73 68 60 58 64 Glenwillow 9 8 6 4 4 3 Highland Heights 28 44 37 54 53 55 25 Highland Hills 2 8 9 4 4 15 14 Hunting Valley 5 7 9 10 10 9 7 Independence 27 27 27 33 24 26 12 Lakewood 460 621 508 468 416 412 216 Linndale 3 3 4 1 1 1 Lyndhurst 67 156 130 139 100 113 56 Maple Heights 704 842 787 758 659 795 555 Mayfield Heights 66 119 86 114 95 128 68 Mayfield Village 20 25 19 32 16 16 9 Middleburg Heights 74 76 84 119 107 127 94 Moreland Hills 37 44 35 36 22 26 19 Newburgh Heights 33 33 26 32 34 45 24 North Olmsted 129 193 216 214 230 250 147 North Randall 10 4 1 3 3 3 2 North Royalton 102 155 130 129 106 103 66 Oakwood 36 44 44 58 59 50 42 Olmsted Falls 49 64 62 81 69 66 39 Olmsted Township 41 73 54 63 58 76 60 Orange 23 25 25 23 20 21 15 Parma 459 756 799 926 811 850 558 Parma Heights 123 179 170 219 185 233 148 Pepper Pike 36 47 39 44 32 37 29 Richmond Heights 117 118 100 136 117 138 83 Rocky River 84 97 78 92 83 85 52 Seven Hills 39 58 56 52 41 60 39 Shaker Heights 203 313 252 254 240 265 181 Solon 123 123 118 123 99 128 71 South Euclid 359 386 398 430 493 422 271 Strongsville 163 217 179 225 197 211 110 University Heights 128 159 136 146 111 117 75 Valley View 11 10 9 11 14 13 6 Walton Hills 19 9 9 16 15 23 11 Warrensville Heights 129 171 162 152 176 206 141 Westlake 72 139 112 93 78 77 41 Woodmere 3 7 5 6 6 8 6 (blank - no geo ident.) 72 61 34 52 52 3 3 Suburban Sub-total 8,990 11,018 10,485 11,516 10,802 11,186 7,192 Table 18. Source: NEO CANDO at Case Western Reserve University. 48 Appendix C: Number of Arms-Length Home Sales 2000 – 2015: Cleveland Neighborhoods NUMBER OF ARMS LENGTH SALES Neighborhood 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 Neighborhood Bellaire-Puritas 263 257 277 294 305 260 246 241 257 185 140 143 149 181 190 171 Bellaire-Puritas Broadw ay-Slavic Village 685 644 620 622 762 818 684 615 797 574 442 325 327 341 359 339 Broadw ay-Slav Brooklyn Centre 138 121 126 129 152 159 149 132 128 90 83 73 71 84 103 110 Brooklyn Centre Buckeye-Shaker Square 173 209 214 189 199 259 224 201 270 171 135 109 115 140 127 178 Buckeye-Shak Buckeye-Woodhill 99 103 89 100 129 141 126 107 204 85 59 49 37 65 64 Central 22 20 19 24 29 27 31 22 43 36 17 15 19 35 26 Clark-Fulton 150 146 140 137 149 174 131 123 130 124 87 75 68 92 107 114 Clark-Fulton Collinw ood-Nottingham 305 324 290 292 324 360 345 316 388 265 167 130 139 175 173 172 Collinw ood-Not Cudell 190 136 136 181 179 169 159 148 159 122 79 66 82 75 109 111 Cudell 1 3 Cuyahoga Valley Detroit Shorew ay 66 Buckeye-Wood 28 Central Cuyahoga Valle 199 171 176 163 191 223 183 165 181 138 119 103 110 162 179 185 Detroit Shore Dow ntow n 18 23 33 24 23 24 20 37 34 22 23 34 24 50 54 52 Dow ntow n Edgew ater 104 80 94 86 86 93 63 46 23 34 37 38 34 50 55 66 Edgew ater 77 75 95 66 90 117 116 95 138 64 48 39 51 64 55 42 Euclid-Green Fairfax 121 119 116 116 134 158 104 144 159 105 51 46 45 37 41 38 Fairfax Glenville 522 523 472 569 610 756 716 653 973 586 430 278 284 327 344 402 Glenville 50 46 38 46 44 57 42 45 37 31 19 20 18 29 19 22 Goodrich-Kirtla 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 68 Hough Euclid-Green Goodrich-Kirtland Pk Hopkins 2 3 Hopkins Hough 152 117 126 147 167 158 177 145 211 125 104 59 62 64 63 Jefferson 371 339 360 356 355 458 311 299 284 216 212 200 180 218 212 266 Jefferson Kamm's 459 484 517 489 544 523 421 367 324 333 287 273 309 367 375 435 Kamm's Kinsman 105 84 88 118 109 143 116 125 156 113 65 51 44 67 61 Lee-Harvard 155 143 153 154 189 180 180 189 227 172 120 110 130 163 146 Lee-Seville 69 Kinsman 193 Lee-Harvard 92 85 101 79 117 99 120 135 146 80 50 37 55 63 60 Mount Pleasant 374 300 276 334 415 417 451 384 564 391 230 190 171 202 219 268 Mount Pleasant North Shore Collinw ood 277 265 263 256 292 287 249 263 287 226 179 171 168 198 168 186 North Shore Col Ohio City 116 103 95 132 79 106 103 90 63 77 79 94 92 135 123 151 Ohio City Old Brooklyn 584 619 672 606 658 612 563 450 419 402 339 316 355 409 414 474 Old Brooklyn St.Clair-Superior 165 127 159 160 176 194 158 186 219 141 137 73 64 89 83 Stockyards 192 180 192 197 193 245 196 176 172 127 118 103 114 113 139 136 Stockyards Tremont 123 124 114 131 126 142 124 102 102 83 69 71 88 100 100 109 Tremont Union-Miles 390 390 354 419 507 569 560 500 655 518 273 261 223 278 270 305 Union-Miles 40 13 19 23 28 40 21 23 17 16 22 14 20 21 17 347 360 306 326 356 377 326 287 288 222 180 171 175 184 208 University West Boulevard 89 Lee-Seville 73 St.Clair-Superio 33 University 258 West Boulevard Table 19. Source: NEO CANDO at Case Western Reserve UnIversity. 49 Appendix D: Number of Arms-Length Home Sales 2000 – 2015: Cuyahoga Suburbs NUMBER OF ARMS LENGTH SALES Suburb 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 Suburb Bay Village 399 362 405 399 401 368 334 283 235 269 209 194 275 280 290 362 Bay Village Beachw ood 140 177 162 190 179 142 146 138 113 133 122 130 115 161 142 164 Beachw ood Bedford 243 205 238 261 235 260 226 171 153 162 119 135 137 169 177 192 Bedford Bedford Heights 100 76 101 116 119 116 110 108 100 99 55 64 78 85 90 28 12 16 21 22 19 22 19 10 14 14 11 11 15 16 291 318 313 290 312 310 297 243 211 222 192 186 162 228 254 Bratenahl 57 46 31 40 47 44 44 25 42 37 34 28 21 45 37 67 Bratenahl Brecksville 246 214 248 226 258 250 222 197 138 132 135 136 160 196 171 184 Brecksville Broadview Heights 315 257 297 321 366 316 306 292 229 192 200 176 215 292 252 323 Broadview Heig Brook Park 269 281 272 262 259 263 268 195 193 203 158 165 160 207 234 256 Brook Park Brooklyn 130 131 139 162 174 162 151 123 101 100 114 100 91 106 102 133 Brooklyn 14 13 16 21 22 16 25 15 16 19 14 15 9 14 15 23 Brooklyn Height Chagrin Falls Tow nship 133 93 125 126 115 114 93 102 73 77 74 65 68 107 97 113 Chagrin Falls To Cleveland Heights 813 776 830 873 900 1003 901 795 836 784 650 486 595 719 648 710 Cleveland Heigh Cuyahoga Heights 7 6 8 9 9 6 8 3 7 6 4 4 7 4 4 10 Cuyahoga Heig East Cleveland 320 287 310 352 417 443 432 329 556 397 271 166 129 147 116 152 East Cleveland Euclid 928 905 876 964 1013 928 878 751 730 763 503 496 633 722 678 814 Euclid Fairview Park 343 369 362 370 337 365 280 258 176 210 196 189 219 270 271 285 Fairview Park Garfield Heights 532 523 532 563 630 629 644 502 441 504 380 386 441 507 505 584 Garfield Heights 44 41 28 39 34 44 41 41 22 18 21 27 35 56 39 Bentleyville Berea Brooklyn Heights Gates Mills Glenw illow 102 Bedford Heights 21 Bentleyville 257 Berea 36 Gates Mills 2 4 1 3 5 2 8 8 20 9 8 10 7 7 14 120 121 104 122 128 139 132 107 79 73 70 83 106 127 104 Highland Hills 8 2 5 6 5 1 4 6 5 3 1 7 6 7 5 5 Highland Hills Hunting Valley 11 4 4 8 13 10 7 7 5 3 6 6 10 7 7 20 Hunting Valley 103 Independence Highland Heights Independence Lakew ood Linndale 82 75 71 109 85 81 94 67 71 71 69 66 78 87 82 954 958 1000 988 932 917 830 680 655 633 527 536 621 700 782 1 1 1 4 2 2 2 2 1 4 2 11 Glenw illow 127 Highland Height 859 Lakew ood 1 Linndale Lyndhurst 336 339 375 381 367 410 312 289 221 241 201 185 245 326 308 360 Lyndhurst Maple Heights 550 452 506 544 580 590 626 484 591 526 349 311 309 372 394 449 Maple Heights Mayfield Heights 293 256 272 280 308 329 283 268 241 227 176 174 183 244 238 281 Mayfield Height 50 NUMBER OF ARMS LENGTH SALES Suburb Mayfield Village 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 Suburb 50 49 57 42 58 42 38 41 31 38 28 28 27 38 38 47 Mayfield Village 252 250 225 265 231 262 251 188 172 159 122 167 179 233 225 213 Middleburg Heig Moreland Hills 63 78 66 69 73 57 57 53 45 39 42 41 48 64 66 53 Moreland Hills New burgh Heights 41 34 28 48 38 47 39 25 29 26 18 30 28 25 39 519 561 551 565 563 553 487 413 313 321 289 270 364 488 434 1 4 275 315 263 Middleburg Heights North Olmsted North Randall North Royalton Oakw ood 1 6 6 4 3 5 4 8 6 5 5 2 381 304 346 397 348 338 352 255 227 211 212 200 44 New burgh Heig 495 North Olmsted 3 North Randall 359 North Royalton 33 41 38 34 39 41 42 33 37 31 30 24 31 31 34 Olmsted Falls 181 170 195 207 220 188 150 141 123 111 85 86 110 130 137 140 Olmsted Falls Olmsted Tow nship 105 128 92 116 124 136 130 110 108 107 77 86 113 151 145 115 Olmsted Tow ns Orange 35 Oakw ood 56 60 64 65 56 48 54 39 44 54 48 34 48 64 58 1223 1332 1284 1438 1428 1369 1308 936 938 857 711 711 837 1038 1062 Parma Heights 296 305 340 339 317 320 300 264 214 264 158 183 192 282 243 262 Parma Heights Pepper Pike 122 99 103 92 91 93 100 90 73 83 98 83 83 87 111 107 Pepper Pike Richmond Heights 173 172 154 169 176 182 160 118 116 111 102 104 121 135 137 157 Richmond Heigh Rocky River 504 474 483 498 485 455 386 361 284 310 277 278 346 424 422 426 Rocky River Seven Hills 161 175 180 179 194 168 186 136 128 122 135 105 134 166 192 201 Seven Hills Shaker Heights 545 537 529 560 565 585 494 448 492 482 420 366 384 477 453 464 Shaker Heights Solon 364 414 345 382 390 361 323 297 284 282 225 239 272 335 302 313 Solon South Euclid 540 553 550 560 641 600 540 369 405 369 283 275 368 447 413 408 South Euclid Strongsville 763 725 721 762 733 738 642 529 433 449 387 378 509 587 588 629 Strongsville University Heights 278 279 324 307 309 322 246 241 224 235 185 182 187 248 230 272 University Heigh Valley View 15 14 16 21 19 20 22 15 9 12 16 15 12 19 11 Walton Hills 21 24 14 50 34 19 19 23 22 18 16 18 19 32 25 Warrensville Heights 124 139 131 149 198 168 191 163 178 170 89 81 109 134 96 Westlake 567 525 563 602 557 569 499 403 343 349 375 356 333 472 422 1 3 7 6 2 6 3 6 3 5 3 3 5 1 5 Parma Woodmere 80 Orange 1167 Parma 20 Valley View 21 Walton Hills 145 Warrensville He 511 Westlake 5 Woodmere Table 20. Source: NEO CANDO at Case Western Reserve University 51 Appendix E: Number of Arms-Length Home Sales 2000 – 2015: Cuyahoga Regions NUMBER OF ARMS LENGTH SALES Cuyahoga Region 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 Cleveland 7058 6732 6731 6967 7721 8346 7416 6813 8056 5874 4402 3737 3824 4579 4663 5212 Cleveland 22469 21792 22111 23254 24188 24611 22428 19235 19794 17363 13844 12741 14240 17429 17122 19132 Cuyahoga Cuyahoga 15 Cuyahoga Reg East Inner Suburb 4457 4258 4331 4662 5038 5043 4797 3894 4307 4064 3001 2629 3024 3599 3383 3847 East Inner Subu East Side of Cleveland 3822 3610 3525 3738 4347 4804 4440 4185 5525 3721 2571 2011 1996 2408 2349 2623 East Side of Cle Outer Suburb 7193 6938 7172 7571 7489 7379 6702 5749 4881 4951 4310 4259 4953 6273 5956 6699 Outer Suburb West Inner Suburb 3439 3558 3556 3740 3638 3548 3248 2572 2365 2334 1999 1996 2283 2760 2892 3150 West Inner Sub West Side of Cleveland 3236 3122 3206 3229 3374 3542 2976 2628 2531 2153 1831 1726 1828 2171 2314 2589 West Side of Cl 322 306 321 314 302 295 265 207 185 140 132 120 156 218 228 Unknow n Cuy Region 224 Unknow n Cuy R Table 21. Source: NEO CANDO at Case Western Reserve University. 52 Appendix F: Single Family vs 1-3 Family Arms-Length Home Sales 2015 Median Price Single Family Compared to 1-3 Family Variance > 10% Highlighted Areas with low sale activity should be interpreted with caution 1-3 Fam ily Cleveland Neighborhood Cuyahoga Valley Num ber Median 0 University 33 Central Edgew ater Fairfax Tremont Dow ntow n 1 Fam ily Num ber no sales 0 150,000 17 28 34,250 66 115,750 38 Median Variance no sales NA 308,000 105% 22 62,475 82% 35 179,900 55% 36,200 28 52,750 46% 109 88,000 59 120,000 36% 52 218,500 3 275,000 26% North Shore Collinw ood 186 36,800 138 38,750 5% Buckeye-Shaker 178 35,000 62 36,450 4% Brooklyn Centre 110 25,001 70 25,900 4% Bellaire-Puritas 171 32,500 164 33,375 3% Union-Miles 305 14,750 238 15,000 2% Collinw ood-Nottingham 172 16,000 92 16,250 2% Mount Pleasant 268 14,837 160 15,000 1% Clark-Fulton 114 19,861 65 20,000 1% Old Brooklyn 474 53,000 384 53,100 0% Cudell 111 20,000 80 20,000 0% 3 125,000 3 125,000 0% Hopkins Kinsman 69 15,000 35 15,000 0% 193 22,000 191 22,000 0% 89 21,200 89 21,200 0% 339 14,137 236 14,050 -1% 66 14,875 29 14,750 -1% Glenville 402 16,700 245 16,420 -2% Kamm's 435 93,400 412 91,375 -2% Jefferson 266 42,000 236 40,950 -3% 42 13,590 32 12,750 -6% 136 15,000 79 14,000 -7% Goodrich-Kirtland 22 23,500 7 21,000 -11% Hough 68 11,750 43 10,500 -11% 258 27,575 180 24,142 -12% Lee-Harvard Lee-Seville Broadw ay-Slavic Vill. Buckeye-Woodland Euclid-Green Stockyards West Boulevard St.Clair-Superior 73 9,632 35 8,000 -17% Detroit Shorew ay 185 37,000 108 29,950 -19% Ohio City 151 135,000 67 103,000 -24% Table 22. Source: NEO CANDO at Case Western Reserve University. 53 2015 Median Price Single Family Compared to 1-3 Family Variance > 10% Highlighted Areas with low sale activity should be interpreted with caution 1-3 Fam ily Cuyahoga Suburb Bratenahl Num ber 1 Fam ily Median Num ber Median Variance 67 225,000 31 295,000 31% Shaker Heights 464 176,425 365 225,000 28% Broadview Heights 323 185,000 242 228,750 24% Chagrin Falls Tow nship 113 245,000 82 293,500 20% Rocky River 426 200,000 313 235,000 18% Westlake 511 209,000 323 245,000 17% Olmsted Falls 140 134,000 92 155,000 16% Middleburg Heights 213 130,000 166 147,250 13% North Royalton 359 180,000 294 197,500 10% Highland Heights 127 240,000 112 262,400 9% Brecksville 184 227,500 149 245,000 8% Warrensville Heights 145 26,000 92 28,000 8% Lakew ood 859 124,000 527 132,000 6% Beachw ood 164 248,500 141 263,000 6% Parma Heights 262 89,950 236 95,000 6% North Olmsted 495 130,000 405 137,000 5% Fairview Park 285 135,000 254 142,000 5% 47 190,000 44 199,500 5% Mayfield Village Euclid 814 43,000 727 45,000 5% Richmond Heights 157 113,000 142 118,250 5% Mayfield Heights 281 125,000 233 130,000 4% Bedford 192 61,250 173 63,500 4% Lyndhurst 360 115,000 312 118,200 3% Strongsville 629 182,600 584 185,750 2% Maple Heights 449 35,000 434 35,500 1% Brook Park 256 96,650 240 98,000 1% Bedford Heights 102 78,950 99 80,000 1% University Heights 272 128,300 258 130,000 1% Berea 257 117,000 239 118,000 1% Table 23. Source: NEO CANDO at Case Western Reserve University. 54 2015 Median Price Single Family Compared to 1-3 Family Variance > 10% Highlighted Areas with low sale activity should be interpreted with caution 1-3 Fam ily Cuyahoga Suburb Num ber Moreland Hills 1 Fam ily Median 53 Num ber Median 370,000 51 Variance 372,000 1% South Euclid 408 70,000 380 70,038 0% Bentleyville 21 440,000 21 440,000 0% 133 85,100 131 85,100 0% 23 150,000 23 150,000 0% Brooklyn Brooklyn Heights Cuyahoga Heights 10 113,950 8 113,950 0% 584 40,000 541 40,000 0% Gates Mills 36 363,500 36 363,500 0% Glenw illow 11 230,000 11 230,000 0% Garfield Heights Highland Hills 5 38,650 5 38,650 0% 103 212,000 102 212,000 0% Linndale 1 19,000 1 19,000 0% North Randall 3 58,900 3 58,900 0% Independence Oakw ood 35 120,000 35 120,000 0% 115 160,000 113 160,000 0% 1,167 90,000 1,103 90,000 0% Pepper Pike 107 375,000 107 375,000 0% Seven Hills 201 150,500 201 150,500 0% Valley View 20 125,000 20 125,000 0% Walton Hills 21 189,000 21 189,000 0% Woodmere 5 189,000 5 189,000 0% Bay Village 362 205,000 349 204,900 0% Cleveland Heights 710 81,250 599 78,000 -4% 20 1,200,000 18 925,000 -23% Olmsted Tow nship Parma Hunting Valley Table 23 continued. Source: NEO CANDO at Case Western Reserve University. 2015 Median Price Single Family Compared to 1-3 Family Variance > 10% Highlighted 1-3 Family Cuyahoga Region Number 1 Family Median Number Median Variance East Inner Suburbs 3,847 53,000 3,284 55,000 4% Cleveland 5,212 28,000 3,644 29,000 4% West Inner Suburs 3,150 110,000 2,592 113,700 3% West Side of Cleveland 2,589 44,500 1,942 45,000 1% East Side of Cleveland 2,623 18,400 1,702 18,000 -2% 81,500 21 300,000 268% Unknow n Cuy Region 224 Table 24. Source: NEO CANDO at Case Western Reserve University. 55 Appendix G: Cleveland Neighborhoods Cleveland Neighborhoods Statistical Planning Areas Created by the City of Cleveland in 2012 Cleve la nd city planning commission Edgewater Cudell West Boulevard Jefferson Bellaire- Puritas St. Clair- Superior Goodrich- Kirtland Park Central cuyahoga Valley Detroit Shoreway Broadway- Slavic Village Stockyards Brooklyn Centre Old Brooklyn Fairfax North Shore Collinwood Collinwood- Nottingham Euclid- Green Glenville Buckeye- Buckeye Woodhill Shaker Square Mount Pleasant Union-Miles Lee' Harvard Lee- Seville 10 Miles 3/17/2016 56 Appendix H: Cuyahoga Suburbs nu" CU aho a Count Colla oratlve 2010 Census Boundaries Ind 2010 Places and MCDs Wm, Bratenahl Richmond Heiqhts uth I I . Eas Cleveland um Hugh?s V/l Cleveland . Pepper Hunting Bay Village City Rod?, LAKOWOOG Cleveland Shaka Pike Valley Rrver Linndale Heights ,4 Woodmere Newburg Heights I Hughland Hulls Westlake Cuyahoga More's? Hills Fan-View Park Dram Falls Broom" Brooklyn Heights '1 (township) 3 No?hRa (3 ll Notth \i a Cpag?in Olmsted a Brook _L"l (Village) Park \1 Bentleyviile Parma Hugh?s Pama Vauey \1 Heights Olmsted View (township) Middleburg seven Solon Berea Heights -ndependenoe Olmsted Falls ?1 Oakwood Broadv-ew 5 10 ?=Mlee 57