Building the Walls

Homeownership, Demographics, and the

Outlook for Californias Real Estate Business

2017 C.A.R. Mid-Year Lunch

May 4, 2017
Joel Singer
Chief Executive Officer
 Californias housing dilemma
Our homeownership market is in trouble

The rental market, even with the conversion of 500,000

SFHs, is still exhibiting inadequate supply
 Homeownership: Where Are We Today?
California Vs. U.S. 10.3% gap in 2016
75% CA US

70% Peak: 69.0%

64.5%
65% 63.4%

60%
Peak: 60.2%
55%
53.7%
53.8%
50%

45%

SERIES: Homeownership Rates

SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau
 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
New York
California

53.8%
Nevada
Rhode Island

SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau

Hawaii

SERIES: Homeownership Rates

Massachusetts
Texas
North Dakota
Washington
Arizona
New Jersey
Georgia
Colorado
Oregon
Connecticut
Louisiana
Florida
Alaska
Illinois
North Carolina
Ohio
Virginia
Amongst All States

Tennessee
Maryland
Missouri
Oklahoma
Kansas
Montana
New Mexico
Arkansas
Homeownership Rate

Wisconsin
Kentucky
Nebraska
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Alabama
California Ranked the 2nd Lowest

Mississippi
Iowa
Wyoming
Idaho
Indiana
Utah
Vermont
New Hampshire
Minnesota
Maine
Michigan
Delaware
West Virginia
 Homeownership Rates Declined the most
for Younger Generations
California
80%
65 &Above

70%
45 64

60%

50% Overall

40% 35 44

30%
Under 35

20%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
SERIES: Homeownership Rates
SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey
 Rise with Income
Homeownership Rate by Income
90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Less than $10,000 to $20,000 to $30,000 to $40,000 to $50,000 to $60,000 to $80,000 to $100,000 to $120,000 or
$10,000 $19,999 $29,999 $39,999 $49,999 $59,999 $79,999 $99,999 $119,999 more
U.S. LA/Long Beach Metro San Francisco Metro Inland Empire

SERIES: Homeownership Rates by Income

SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau 2015 American Housing Survey
 And Differ by Ethnicity
California Homeownership Rates by Race and Ethnicity (2010-2014 Average)

SERIES: Homeownership rate by ethnicity

SOURCE: CA HCD, PolicyLink, USC Program for Environmental and Regional Equity
 Population and Households Will
Continue to Grow
California 1970-2030
50,000,000

45,000,000

40,000,000

35,000,000

30,000,000

25,000,000

20,000,000

15,000,000

10,000,000

5,000,000

-
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
2026
2028
2030
SOURCE: Moodys Analytics
 With California Becoming More Diverse
Racial/Ethnic Composition in CA, 1980-2040

SERIES: Ethnic Composition in California

SOURCE: CA HCD, PolicyLink, USC Program for Environmental and Regional Equity
 and Housing-Cost Burden not Distributed
Evenly across Ethnicity
Percent of California Households Paying over 30 Percent of Income toward Housing (2009 2013)

SERIES: Homeownership rate by ethnicity

SOURCE: CA HCD, HUD CHAS data set, US Census Bureau
 Homeownership Will Deteriorate if the Trend
Continues
California Homeownership Rate
70%

60% 59.7%
57.1% 52.8%
56.1%
50.0%
52.1%
50% 47.3%
47.9%
51.3%
44.2%
45.9%
40%
41.0%

30%
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Fast Slow Avearge

SERIES: Homeownership Rate

SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, C.A.R. projection
Housing Affordability
 Housing Affordability Index Remained Flat,
but Could Decline with Rate Hikes
California vs. U.S. 1984-2016
80%
Annual Quarterly
% OF HOUSEHOLDS THAT CAN BUY A

70% CA US
58%
60%
MEDIAN-PRICED

50%
HOME

40%

30%
31%
20%

10%

0%

SERIES: Housing Affordability Index of Traditional Buyers

SOURCE: CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS
 Rising Home Prices Lower Housing Affordability
Level
California, March 2017: $517,020, +8.0% MTM, +6.8% YTY
P: May-07
$700,000
$594,530
Mar-16: Mar-17:
$600,000 $484,120 $517,020

$500,000
T: Mar-09
$245,230
$400,000 -59% from
peak
$300,000

$200,000

$100,000

$-

SERIES: Median Price of Existing Single Family Homes

SOURCE: CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS
 Lackluster Income Growth Also Contributed to
the Affordability Issue
Household Income vs. Home Price
40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

-10%

-20%

-30% Income growth could not keep

-40%
up with price growth until recently
-50%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Income Growth Price Growth

SERIES: Household income growth vs. Home price growth

SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey/Annual Social and
Economic Supplement, CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS
 Most Cannot Afford to Purchase a Home
with a Single Income
California
$120,710
$120,000 2016 Annual Mean Wage
$101,750 $101,220
$100,000 $96,660
$92,380

$74,270
$80,000 $71,790

$60,000
$49,810

$40,000
$29,810

$20,000

$0
Retail Chefs and Firefighters Elementary Computer Police and Registered Software Min. Inc
Salespersons Head Cooks School Programmers Sherriff's Patrol Nurses Developers Required to
Teachers Officers (Applications) Buy a Med.
Home

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics, C.A.R.

 What Will Happen When Mortgage Rates
Increase?
Q4-2016 Median Price $511,360
20% Downpayment

MONTHLY MORTGAGE Minimum Qualifying Income

$2,800 $2,586 $140,000 $126,951
$2,453 $121,630
$2,323 $116,433
$2,400 $2,196 $120,000 $111,365
$106,434
$2,073 $101,645
$1,953 $97,002
$2,000 $1,837 $100,000 $92,512
$1,725

$1,600 $80,000

$1,200 $60,000

$800 $40,000

$400 $20,000

$0 $0
3.0% 3.5% 4.0% 4.5% 5.0% 5.5% 6.0% 6.5% 3.0% 3.5% 4.0% 4.5% 5.0% 5.5% 6.0% 6.5%
INTEREST RATE INTEREST RATE

SERIES: Housing Affordability Index

SOURCE: CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS
 Housing Affordability Index - CA
What Will Happen When Mortgage Rates Increase?
50%
% OF HOUSEHOLDS THAT CAN BUY, ALL ELSE CONSTANT Q4-2016 Median Price $511,360
20% Downpayment
40% 35%
33%
31%
29%
27%
30% 25%
24%
22%

20%

10%

0%
3.0% 3.5% 4.0% 4.5% 5.0% 5.5% 6.0% 6.5%
INTEREST RATE

SERIES: Housing Affordability Index

SOURCE: CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS
 Affordability Is also an Issue for Renters
California Average Asking Rent Rent vs. Household Income
$2,200
180 Indexed: 2000=100
$1,977 173.0
$2,000 Asking Rent
170
Household Income
$1,800 160

150
$1,600
140 135.9
$1,400 $1,337
130
$1,200
120
$1,032
$1,000 110

100
$800

SERIES: California asking rent and household income

SOURCE: California Department of Housing and Community Development,
Census Bureau Decennial Census, American Community Survey
 A Mismatch between Supply and Demand in
the Rental Market
Growth in Rent Population Exceeded Growth in Rental Stock Vacancy Rates Down; LA and SF Had the Lowest

SOURCE: NYU Furman Center/Capital One National

Affordable Rental Housing Landscape
 California Ranked the 2nd Highest in Wages
Needed to Afford a Modest Rental Unit
In 2016, the hourly wage required
to afford a two-bedroom
apartment at the national level
was $20.30

California minimum wage for

employers with 25 employees or
less: $10/hr.

California minimum wage for

employers with 26 employees or
more: $10.50/hr.

SOURCE: National Low Income Housing Coalition

Out of Reach 2016
 Housing-Cost Burden Affects Lower-Income
Households the Most
% of Californias Renters Experiencing Rent Burden

Rent Burdened: paying more than

30% of income toward rent

Severely rent burdened: paying

more than 50% of income toward
rent

SERIES: Renters experiencing rent burden

SOURCE: CA HCD, US Census Bureau, 2016 National Low-Income Housing Coalition
 23
Rent Burdens Delay Renters from Buying
Homes
Many Renting Because of Affordability Issue Nearly Half of Renters Plan to
Buy in the Future Though

No plans to buy 28%

6.4% Not sure 24%

5.5% Can't afford to buy
Poor credit / Can't qualify
6.3%
Flexibility/Freedom of renting In 5+ Years 11%
Cost/Upkeep/Responsibility
7.0% 46%
Renting is easier
Never considered it/No interest
3-5 Years 14%
7.8%
Young/Starting out/Not ready
Other In 2 Years 13%
8.4%

13% Within a year 9.6%

0% 10% 20% 30%

SERIES: 2016 C.A.R. Renter Survey

SOURCE: California Association of REALTORS
Q. Why do you rent instead of buying?
 Supply Shortage Is the Primary Reason for
the Affordability Issue
Existing inventory has been trending down

California is building less than people demand

 Fewer Units Turning Over Since the Great Recession

Housing Turnover Rate

10% (Single-Family Homes only)
9% CA US Linear (CA)

8%
CA turnover rate trend
7%

6%
5.1%
5%

4% 4.5%

3%

2%

1%

0%
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
SERIES: Percent of existing single-family homes being sold
SOURCE: Census Bureau, American Community Survey, Moodys Analytics, C.A.R.
 Years Owned Home Before Selling
12 All Sellers
10 Long-Time Homeowners are not
10
moving as in the past because:
8
Demographic shift
6
Low rate on current mortgage
4 Low property taxes
Capital gains hit
2
Where can I afford to go?
0

SERIES: 2016 Housing Market Survey

SOURCE: CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS
 Boomers Not Moving as Often

71% of Californians aged 55+ havent moved since 1999

California Homeowners by Length of Tenure, 2013
35% Under 55 55+ 31.8%
30%
24.4% 24.0%
25%
21.3%
20%

15% 14.2%
12.4% 12.0%
11.0% 10.7%
10% 9.0% 8.9%
7.3%
5.7%
5%
1.9%
0.9% 0.8%
0%
1978 & Earlier 1979 to 1984 1985 to 1989 1990 to 1994 1995 to 1999 2000 to 2005 2005 to 2009 2010 to 2013

SERIES: Distribution of Home Ownership by Year Moved In

SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013 American Housing Survey
 Owners Investing in Staying Put ?
Alterations/Additions Reach All-Time High & Gaining Steam
Up 16% from 2015 YTD levels
$3.9 Billion
4.5 through July
$ Billions

4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Year-to-Date Through July

SOURCE: California Homebuilding Foundation (CHF)/Construction Industry Research Board (CIRB)

Downloaded from Moodys Analytics
Lack of New
Constructions
 Missing 77,000 New Units Annually
2016: 98,881 (47,889 sf, 50,992 mf)
350000
2017f: 102,712 (51,720 sf, 50,992 mf )
300000
Single Family Multi-Family CA HCD Projected
250000 Housing Needs:
180,000/yr.
200000

150000

100000

50000

SERIES: California New Housing Permits

SOURCE: Construction Industry Research Board
 But California Used to Produce More

Avg. 1955-1989: 200k

Avg. 2006-2015: 80k

SERIES: California New Housing Permits

SOURCE: Construction Industry Research Board
 CA has produced less housing per capita
than other US states

SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, McKinsey Global Institute

 Housing Supply Gap Will Be Over 2 Million at
Current Construction Pace

1,335,256
With housing needs increasing at a
rate of 180,000 every year, California

-1,016,140 will need more than 3.3 million units

by 2030 to fill the housing demand
-2,020,884
-2,340,000 and bring it back to 2005 level.
At the current construction pace,
-3,356,140
however, California will have a
Supply gap Demand Total Housing New supply at Gap to fill by backlog of over 2 million by 2030
since 2005 addition by Demand by current 2030 to get
2030 2030 construction back to 2005
rates Level

SERIES: Housing Supply Gap

SOURCE: Calculation by CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS
 Most Underbuilt Counties in California
Jobs Created vs. Units Permitted
2010-2016
500,000
438,090
450,000
400,000
350,000
300,000
235,612
250,000
200,000
150,000 100,602
100,000 49,693
50,000 16,144
0

Jobs Created (2010-2016) Units Permitted (2010-2016)

SERIES: Nonfarm Job Growth & Housing Affordability Index (HAI)

SOURCE: CA EDD, Construction Industry Research Board
 California Not Building Enough Because

SOURCE: CA Legislative Analyst Office

 Barriers and Constraints to Housing
Development

SOURCE: CA HCD
 Barriers and Constraints to Housing
Development (cont.)

SOURCE: CA HCD
 Why the Production Shortfall?
Shortage of Land:
Production shortfall greatest in cities where need is most critical

High Costs of Development

Fees in most California communities are higher than elsewhere in
US
Infill development costs higher than suburban development
costs
Environmental policies, etc increase costs
Lengthy permitting process increases cost per unit produced
and favors deep pockets
 Building in California is Expensive
Land Costs
2 to 4 times higher on California (CA) Coasts
High land costs usually mean more units being
built on each plot of land, but not the case in
CAs coastal metros
During the 2000s housing density of a typical
neighborhood in CAs coastal metro rose only
4%, considerably less than the 11% average
increase in the comparison group
The new housing unit in the comparison group
was also 40% more dense than that built in CA.
SERIES: Homeownership Rate
SOURCE: CA Legislative Analyst Office
Building Costs
$50k to $75 higher in California (CA)
Include labor, building material and
government fees, all higher in CA than other
states
Development fees are higher in California
than the rest of the country. A 2012 national
survey found that the average development
fee levied by California local governments
(excluding water-related fees) was $22,000
per single family home, as compared to the
$6,000 per single-family home in the rest of
the country.
 Gap Between Price and Costs Has Widen
Because of Stringent Housing Regulations

SERIES: Real house Prices vs. Real Construction Costs

SOURCE: Gyourko and Malloy (2015), the White House: Housing DevelopmentTookit
 The Gap Varies Widely between Counties

SOURCE: Ed Glaeser and Joe Gyourko

 Other Barriers
General Desire for Low Density Land Use
Preference for detached single family homes
Disdain for multifamily developments
Cost of service to cities higher than other land uses

NIMBYism:
Desire to preserve existing character of community
Dislike for multifamily, higher density development by residents
and officials
Quality of life concerns
Fear of crime and other negative aspects associated with
density
 Case Study: Restrictive Zoning in L.A.
Los Angeles Zoned Residential Capacity

Los Angeles was zoned to

accommodate 10 million people
in 1960

Today, the city is zoned for only

4.3 million people after decades
of population growth and
increase in housing demand.

SERIES: Los Angeles Zoned Residential Capacity

SOURCE: Morrow (2016), the White House: Housing DevelopmentTookit
 More Underbuilding, More Price Growth
Housing Deficit vs. Housing Affordability
60
Housing Affordability Index (%)

50
Inland Empire Modesto

40

30
East Bay
Napa
Sonoma
20 Santa Clara Marin
Santa Cruz
San Francisco MD
10

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Housing Deficit

SERIES: Nonfarm Job Growth, New Housing Permits, Existing Median Prices
SOURCE: CA EDD, C.A.R., Construction Industry Research Board
 How Do High Housing Cost Affect
Californians?

SERIES: Homeownership Rate

SOURCE: CA Legislative Analyst Office
 How Do High Housing Costs Affect the
Economy
Negative impact of excessive
barriers to housing
development:

Lower housing affordability for

working families

Increase income inequality by

reducing less-skilled workers
access to high-wage labor
markets

Slow down economic growth

by driving labor migration
away from the most
productive regions

SOURCE: CA Legislative Analyst Office

 CA Population Net Gain/Loss (2004 - 2013)

-90286 -13,842 -2,424 +3,536

+1,372 -434
-3,808 +543
-112,955 -53,829
-6,082 +20,045 -1,407
+36,248 +23,083
-7,422
-6,427
+12,098
+27,641-4,825 +10,429
-157,161 +574
-46,339 +28 +25,151 +7,794
-58,281 -8,016
-15,610 -809
-5,913 -16,965

-25,656 -21,453 -25,837 -34,561

-177,967 -23,363
-9,349
Left CA: 5 million -8,461
-30,854
-244,600 -1,892
Came to CA: 3.9 million -4,544
Net Loss: 1million -16,381

SERIES: People Leaving/Coming to California

SOURCE: IRS, Sacramento Bee
 CA Population Continued to Increase, but Due
Entirely to Immigrants Moving from Other Countries

SERIES: Immigration and domestic migration

SOURCE: U.S. Census, First Tuesday Journal
 More Californians Moving out than Moving in.
Their Top Destinations
Inflow Outflow (CA, 2011-2015) Net Migration (2011-2015)

Texas -124,064

Nevada -92,367

Arizona -74,038

Oregon -70,354

Washington -32,598

Colorado -31,432

Idaho -28,056

Utah -25,147

North Carolina -21,230

Georgia -16,403

300 200 100 0 -100 -200 -300 -400

Thousands

SERIES: California Migration

SOURCE: U.S. Census, Calculations by the California Association of REALTORS
 States with More Affordable Housing
All-Transactions House Price Index
Index 1980:Q1=100, Annual, Not Seasonally Adjusted
700
Texas
600
Nevada
Arizona
500
Oregon
Washington 400
Colorado
Idaho 300
Utah
North Carolina 200

Georgia
100
California

SERIES: All-Transaction House Price Index

SOURCE: Federal Housing Finance Agency
 More Sellers Moving out of County, Even out of
California
Location of Sellers New Home

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Within the same county 38% 41% 37% 45% 47% 42% 49% 49% 46% 44% 44% 40%

In another county in
23% 18% 24% 17% 21% 21% 19% 18% 20% 21% 20% 21%
California

In another state 31% 28% 29% 27% 19% 20% 20% 22% 19% 22% 22% 25%

Out of US 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 1%

Don't Know/Not sure 7% 11% 9% 10% 12% 16% 10% 10% 15% 13% 13% 13%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

SERIES: 2016 Annual Housing Market Survey

SOURCE: California Association of REALTORS
 Californians with Lower Income Level Were
More Likely to Move out of the State
Net Migration by Personal Income (2011-2015)
-69.0 Under 10,000
-51.3 $10,000 to $19,999
-45.7 $20,000 to $29,000
-20.8 $30,000 to $39,999
-12.4 $40,000 to $49,999
16.1 $50,000 to $74,999
15.7 $75,000 to $99,999
14.5 $100,000 to $149,999
-1.2 $150,000 to $199,999
6.5 $200,000 to $250,000
-3.3 Over $250,000

-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40

Thousand
SERIES: California Migration
SOURCE: U.S. Census, Calculations by the California Association of REALTORS
 Young Adults and Baby Boomers also Moved Out of
California at a Faster Rate than Other Age Groups
Net Migration by Age (2011-2015)

-1.9 Over 65

-28.1 51-65

-45.3 41-50

-14.3 26-40

-55.7 18-25

-4.7 Under 18

-60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0

Thousand
SERIES: California Migration
SOURCE: U.S. Census, Calculations by the California Association of REALTORS
 States with Most Income Gain and Most
Income Loss Due to Migration of Taxpayers
Gross Income Loss (in thousand) Gross Income Gain (in thousand)

-$4,554,946 New York Florida $11,557,433

-$3,382,616 Illinois Texas $3,446,331

-$2,431,308 New Jersey Nevada $1,388,100

-$2,013,443 California Arizona $1,208,386

-$1,267,829 Connecticut South Carolina $1,098,946

-$1,262,128 Ohio North Carolina $1,045,233

-$1,012,604 Maryland Washington $1,042,239

-$1,002,403 Pennsylvania Colorado $856,265

-$788,362 Massachusetts Tennessee $568,208

-$692,584 Virginia Oregon $452,724

SERIES: Migration data

SOURCE: IRS Migration Data (2014-2015)
 An Employer Perspective of the Affordable
Housing Crisis
2016 LABC EAH Survey
Over the course of 3 months, a team of USC researchers surveyed 14 major Los Angeles
employers to get their views on how high housing costs have affected their ability to
attract and retain workers, how their employees are handling the high housing costs,
and their efforts to help alleviate the pressures that arise from living in a region with such
high housing costs.
 The High Cost of Housing Is a Challenge to
Retain and Hire Employees

SOURCE: LA Business Council Institute

 Companies Have Lost Employees Due to the
High Cost of Housing

SOURCE: LA Business Council Institute

 Comments from Employers Who Left
California
It was really about affordable housing. ... They had focus groups with their
employees. Their people said, Were willing to move. We just want to live the
American Dream. Theyre paying the same salary. So in real terms, theyre going
to triple the affordability of housing they can buy if they move to Texas (Albert
Niemi Jr., an inside consultant for Toyota).

You have expensive real estate, tight labor supply, union issues, environmental
regulations and geographic constraints. No ones really thinking, Oh, its perfect for
large, heavy scale manufacturing. It doesnt quite add up. (An aerospace analyst
had this comment on the Boeing decision to stop producing the C-17 military cargo
jet at its Long Beach facility)
 Employees Choose to Substitute Transportation
Costs for Paying Higher Housing Costs

One possible response to high housing costs is to

live less centrally, in lower-cost and more-remote
communities, and then travel longer distances to
get to and from work. Our employers report that
this is, in fact, the choice that a significant fraction
of workers is making. Large proportions of the
workforces of these employers are choosing to
substitute transportation costs, which include time,
costs of transit or driving (gas, etc.), and stress, for
paying higher housing costs. (LA Business Council
Institute - The Affordable Housing Crisis in Los
Angeles: An Employer Perspective)

SOURCE: LA Business Council Institute

 Housing and Transportation Costs Burdens
Throughout California
Employees have adapted to high cost
situation by living far from their place of
employment

While housing may be more affordable in

distant locations, transportation costs are
elevated due to the need to commute
long distances

Are employees really better off? What is the

positive net benefit?

SERIES: Housing and Transportation Index

SOURCE: Center for NeighborhoodTechnology
What can be done
 Inadequate Housing supply issue
Housing supply constrained in long-run
New construction recovery is very slow
Production has fallen short of housing needs
Short on new units since 2005

Inhibited by
Fiscal interests of local government
Residents who disdain further development, especially multi-
family
Unfavorable legal/business environment for development in
general & multi-family in particular
 Solutions
Production Gap is Primary Source of CAs Housing Problems

Solutions must include:

Increase in Production
Infill and brownfield opportunities in urban areas where shortage is critical
Revitalization of Neighborhoods
Change Incentive Structure Facing Cities
Fiscal
Housing & Zoning Requirements
Enforce housing elements of general plans, create incentives to comply
Improve Business & Legal Climate for Developers CEQA Reform
 Solutions

Attitude Shift is Essential to Moving Toward Solutions

By Households as Residents
By Households as Taxpayers
By Local Elected Officials
By State Officials

and an Attitude Shift Requires Education and

Heightened Awareness of Problems, Implications, and
Solutions!

Solutions will take time

 Thank You

This presentation can be found on

www.car.org/marketdata
Speeches & Presentations
joels@car.org