U.S. Housing Stability Intelligence
City Component
Ownership Sustainability evaluates long-term carrying viability for resident households beyond initial purchase access.
Long-run ownership strain can rise from tax, insurance, and recurring carrying costs even when headline prices appear manageable.
2024 Score Edition Component Score
61
/100
Band: Strong
Score date 2024-12-30 · Method v3-2024-refresh-explainability
City score provenance: mixed inputs · 9/10 direct local ACS baseline inputs · Not included in major-city rankings.
Comparative Context
State percentile: 63rd.
National percentile: 61st.
City ACS ownership carry profile with county labor-market context (2024, v3-2024-refresh-explainability).
Driver 1
Ownership sustainability is the main constraint at 61 / 100, so users should read that component as the clearest pressure point in this location.
Assesses whether residents can realistically maintain housing over time across cost escalation, tax pressure, insurance overlap, and distress trends.
Signal 1
Owner carrying-cost burden relative to local income levels.
Signal 2
Owner occupancy share and tenure durability context.
Signal 3
Expense escalation overlap across taxes, insurance, and maintenance pressure.
Signal 4
Distress-related pressure signals where available in standardized sources.
Interpretation
Higher scores indicate stronger long-term ownership viability.
Lower scores indicate elevated ongoing carrying-cost risk for residents.
Use trend direction to distinguish improving versus deteriorating ownership conditions.
Questions
Can households realistically maintain ownership long term?
Are recurring carrying costs becoming structurally burdensome?
How does local ownership viability compare with state and national peers?