Richard is absolutely right... The problem as I see it, it's the lack of
consistent, cross-tab records to understand why a unit is vacant... Is
it due to a tough rental market? Or is it because the unit it's never
for rent in the 1st place? Unless there is a specific reason to
associate housing units to number of people (such as physical
infrastructure inference), housing stock should never be used as a proxy
for person counts...AND, YES, Richard is right again about IRS
records...it has a few (or too many, depending on how you see it)
incongruencies and too much room for interpretation/error...
Again, if it were easy there wouldn't be any demographers, right???
Denver Regional Council of Governments
4500 Cherry Creek Dr South Suite 800
Denver CO 80246-1531
From: Richard Lin [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 12:16 PM
To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net; Fernando DePaolis; djbeaty(a)pbsj.com
Cc: Cindy DeGroen; Elizabeth Garner; Jim Westkott
Subject: RE: [CTPP] Census Data in High Vacation Rental Areas
Dear Fernando and All,
In population statistics, a person can only be counted
once and only once. Therefore, if a person lives in his/her
usual (permanent) residence but also owns a second home
(vacation home), his/her second home should be counted as
vacant except it is rented out as permanent (long term; such
as one-year lease) residence for the renters.
Unless you have an annual updated formal report of the
rental list by number of residents, the IRS income tax report
(or county-to-county IRS migration flow) is the best
administrative record for the estimates of population change.
The only shortcoming of the IRS report is that it does not
cover the illegal immigrants and those who either do not file
income tax report or who do file income tax report using
address other than the rental address.
Underestimated second home renters? Maybe. Overestimated?
Possible. The best solution is to have a census count (or
canvass; or administrative record) by well defined residence
rule (a person can only be counted once and only once).
Hope the difficult issue keep demographers alive.
Richard Lin, Ph.D.
Colorado Department of Local Affairs
Division of Local Government
1313 Sherman Street, Room 521
Denver, CO 80203
>> "Fernando DePaolis"
<FDePaolis(a)drcog.org> 6/7/2007 8:58 AM >>>
We have the same problem
in the mountain communities where
there is a large proportion of "second" homes, not
necessarily for rent... it's been quite frustrating but at
some point we'll have a method to deal with that... probably
based on reports from local governments... the main problem
in forecasting those figures is the high volatility of such markets...
Our view is that "the Census" doesn't deal with the
underlying cause of vacancy very well...
Fernando DePaolis, Ph.D.
DRCOG - Denver Regional Council of Governments 4500 Cherry
Creek Dr South Suite 800 Denver CO 80246-1531
(303)480-6728 fdepaolis(a)drcog.org www.drcog.org
This is a private message sent on my DRCOG email account
pursuant to DRCOG's Internet Policy. This email and any files
transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for
the use of the individual or entity to whom they are
addressed. If you have received this email in error please
disregard. Any views or opinions presented in this email are
solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent
those of DRCOG.
[mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of Beaty, Daniel J
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 2:50 PM
Subject: [CTPP] Census Data in High Vacation Rental Areas
I want to know if anyone else has had experience with
Census data seeming to under represent population and vacancy
rates in areas with high concentrations of vacation rental
property that tends to be seasonal in nature. I am working
on a project that has this situation and I'm would like to
know if this is an anomaly or if others have seen this also.
Daniel J. Beaty, AICP
Transportation Planning Program Manager
1901 Commonwealth Lane
Tallahassee, Florida 32303
Phone: 850.575.1800 Ext. 7914