Rising rents and shrinking affordable housing options have escalated into a citywide crisis. Students, young professionals, and families living paycheck to paycheck face mounting pressure as apartments once within reach of working‑class wages now list hundreds of dollars higher. Investors are buying older buildings, converting them into short‑term rentals, or renovating them into units priced beyond what longtime tenants can afford, leaving many residents with fewer options and growing uncertainty.
Over the past decade, the gap between rising rents and modest income growth has left many Green Bay residents struggling to keep a roof over their heads. In 2015, renters paid an average of $754 per month while the average household income was $55,245 annually, or about $3,781 per month adjusted (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD], 2015; U.S. Census Bureau, 2015). By 2025, average rent had climbed to $1,082—a 43% increase—while income grew only 14% to about $63,000 annually, or roughly $4,200 per month.
That imbalance pushed the city’s rent‑to‑income ratio from 19.5% of monthly income in 2015 to 25.8% in 2025, signaling that households are spending a larger portion of their paychecks on housing and leaving less for savings, healthcare, and other necessities.
“It’s a difficult market. Affordability is a huge component of that,” said Patrick Leifker, executive director of the Brown County Housing Authority. “We’ve seen ups and downs, but really saw a shift around the time of the pandemic, when availability was limited and fair market rent costs increased significantly.” The surge in housing costs has put low- and moderate-income residents under pressure, even as developers push new projects across the city.
Historically, the 30% rule has been used to define affordability: households should not spend more than 30% of their income on housing costs, including rent and utilities. While Green Bay’s rent-to-income ratio has not yet reached that threshold, the upward trajectory is troubling.
Importantly, the percentages in the graph reflect rent alone and do not include utilities such as electricity, heating, water, and internet, all of which are commonly included in the 30% rule. When these costs are factored in, many households are already approaching or exceeding the 30% affordability limit.
With affordability challenges mounting, the issue has shifted from maintaining the 30% income‑to‑rent guideline to prioritizing which expenses are truly essential. Broader inflationary pressures compound this housing burden. Over the same period, grocery, gas, and other essential prices have risen significantly, eroding the purchasing power of stagnant incomes.
“Housing is only one current part of affordability,” said Liefker, “Individuals who are stably housed are also considering other expenses—like groceries, gas, and utilities—so even if there’s excess funds for housing, it’s probably being utilized elsewhere.”
Food costs have climbed steadily, and Gasoline prices have fluctuated but remain higher on average than a decade ago, increasing transportation costs for households. Utilities have also become more expensive, particularly heating costs in Wisconsin’s long winters.
Taken together, these factors mean that while rent alone consumes about 26% of monthly income in 2025, the true housing burden, including utilities, likely pushes many households above that 30% threshold. When combined with rising costs for food, transportation, and healthcare, the financial strain becomes clear: residents are forced to make difficult trade-offs, cutting back on savings, delaying medical care, or reducing discretionary spending just to keep pace with the cost of living.
Poverty and the Compounding Burden
For households living below the poverty line, the pressures are even more severe. In Green Bay, 16.5% of residents live in poverty, and when including families classified as ALICE (Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed), nearly 42% of households struggle to afford basic necessities, according to United Way of Wisconsin. (2022).
Poverty thresholds set by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in 2025 include $15,650 for a single person and $32,150 for a family of four. At these income levels, rent and utilities can consume 40–50% of monthly earnings, far exceeding the federal threshold for being “cost‑burdened.”
This imbalance forces low‑income families into impossible choices. Rising grocery prices push households toward food pantries or cheaper, less nutritious options. Higher gas costs limit access to jobs, childcare, and healthcare, while steep winter heating bills can trigger cycles of debt or force families to choose between warmth and food. Without savings, even small emergencies—a car repair, a medical bill, or a spike in utility costs—can destabilize a household.
The consequences ripple outward. Children in poverty‑stricken households may face food insecurity, frequent moves, or disruptions in schooling. Adults often delay medical care or prescriptions to cover rent, compounding long‑term health risks. In this context, the housing burden is not just about rent; it is about survival. For Green Bay’s poorest residents, affordability is a daily calculation of which basic need can be sacrificed, underscoring how the city’s housing crisis intersects with broader inequities in income, health, and opportunity.
Homelessness and Housing Instability
When rent and utility costs consume nearly half of a low‑income household’s earnings, even small financial shocks can push families over the edge. In Green Bay, this has translated into rising rates of housing instability and homelessness.
The Greater Green Bay Blueprint to Prevent and End Homelessness, a nonprofit operating within Brown County, Wisconsin, identified over 2,200 households in Brown County experiencing homelessness or at risk of losing housing, underscoring the scale of the crisis.
The Blueprint also documented a shortage of 1,200 affordable rental units and at least 450 supportive housing units needed to meet demand. Without these, families and individuals are forced into shelters, doubled‑up living arrangements, or unsafe housing conditions.
As Liefker explained, “There’s a lot of agencies… some organizations have purchased property themselves and have become landlords themselves, and that has seen success”.
On long-term strategies, Leifker emphasized the importance of coordinated community efforts: “The biggest component comes into the collaboration element of it… when the entire community… comes together and collaboratively works to address the problem, you’re going to naturally create more buy-in, and you’re going to get more… incremental success rather than that long-term.” The Blueprint called for $20–25 million in investment, including American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds, to expand affordable housing, supportive services, and prevention programs. Yet by 2025, homelessness counts reached record highs, with the average length of homelessness stretching to 84 days, highlighting the urgency of fully implementing these strategies.
Project-Based Vouchers: A Key Tool in Stabilizing Affordable Housing
One of the most important tools available to the Brown County Housing Authority in expanding affordability is the Project-Based Voucher (PBV) program, which directly ties rental assistance to specific units rather than to tenants themselves. Unlike tenant-based vouchers—which allow renters to search the private market for an available unit—the PBV model guarantees that a set number of units in a development will remain affordable for lower-income households for 15 to 20 years.
The program has become essential not only for residents but for developers navigating high construction and financing costs. “When we commit project-based vouchers, we provide the waiting list and a pool of individuals the landlord can select from to fill vacancies,” Leifker explained. “Every month, we’re already contributing a portion of the rent directly to the landlord on the tenant’s behalf. So there’s that stability in terms of the on-time rental payments that go with it.”
That stability is attractive to developers who are weighing rising interest rates, labor shortages, and material costs, all of which make affordable housing projects difficult to finance. PBVs help fill the “capital stack,” adding a predictable revenue stream that strengthens a project’s feasibility. “I think it’s a benefit to both sides,” Leifker noted. “Developers get financial stability and a partnership with local agencies, while residents get long-term affordability.”
The program also ensures that newly built units serve those who need them most. Because PBV units must be filled through the Housing Authority’s waitlist, they automatically prioritize low- to moderate-income households. These predictable affordability requirements help prevent new developments—especially those in high-growth areas like the Stadium District and Downtown District—from becoming exclusively market-rate and inaccessible to local workers.
In recent years, several housing projects in Green Bay have incorporated PBVs (or similar affordable/rent-restricted units) to help stabilize housing for low- to moderate-income families. For example, the development of The Fort at The Rail Yard is just one of these brand new constructions. Meanwhile, under the management of Green Bay Housing Authority (GBHA), the “Scattered Sites” family-housing program converted 48 single-family homes/duplexes into voucher-assisted units, meaning families using vouchers can rent these homes at subsidized rates rather than facing full market rents.
As Green Bay faces a shortage of more than 1,200 affordable rental units and 450 supportive housing units (according to The Greater Green Bay Blueprint to Prevent and End Homelessness), PBVs are one of the few mechanisms capable of quickly increasing the supply of below-market housing. They also pair well with other tools, such as Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC), which many local developments rely on. When combined, they create a powerful incentive for developers to include affordable units, even in neighborhoods where land and construction costs are rising.
Leifker emphasized that programs like PBVs succeed only through collaboration. “It comes down to the community working together toward the same unified goal,” he said. “When developers, municipalities, and housing agencies align, we can start addressing the availability and affordability issues in front of us.”
In a market where rents have grown nearly three times faster than incomes, the PBV program offers both stability and accountability—and stands as one of the clearest pathways to expanding housing access for Green Bay residents.
Short-term solutions for residents in immediate need are also emerging. Local nonprofits and government programs are purchasing or utilizing vacant units, pairing them with case management services to help previously unhoused individuals secure stable housing. “Through these efforts, we’ve had successful outcomes for dozens of individuals,” Leifker said. “It’s a collaborative process, and it demonstrates that even in a challenging market, creative partnerships can make a real difference.”
Community Voices
For many Green Bay residents, these solutions aren’t necessarily just about housing, but about falling into a widening gap—earning too much to qualify for traditional housing assistance yet too little to remain financially stable. Families like that of Shyann Martinez, a mother who is expecting, living at the edge of Green Bay, near McArthur Elementary School, know this struggle well.
Martinez works full-time in the sales industry as a marketing and supply chain management assistant, while her significant other makes approximately $30,000 annually, falling just short of Green Bay’s average income of ~ $63,000, placing them just above the cutoff for most rental assistance programs. But with rising rents and steep increases in healthcare premiums for their employer-sponsored plan, the numbers still don’t add up.
“We’re right in the middle,” Martinez explained. “We don’t make enough to be comfortable, but apparently, we make too much to get help. It feels like we’re constantly falling through the cracks.”
For her family of four, monthly expenses have climbed sharply over the past few years. Their rent increased to $1265 a month, and the family’s health insurance premiums jumped by nearly $100 in the same time frame—costs that Martinez says have forced them to make difficult choices.
“Our premium alone is almost as much as our car payment,” she said. “By the time we pay rent, insurance, and groceries for the house, there’s almost nothing left. It isn’t that we aren’t trying hard enough, it’s that we don’t have anything left to work with—there’s just nothing more we can do.” This is just one instance of what it is like to be teetering on the edge of ‘living comfortably, but barely scraping by.’
“When I was searching, I kind of just applied everywhere, I was calling everywhere,” she said. “But every time, it’s either ‘you don’t qualify’ or ‘there’s no availability.’ I feel like we’re doing everything right, but we’re still barely hanging on.”
Like many moderate-income families, Martinez earns too much to receive housing vouchers or reduced-rate units, yet faces the same rising cost pressures affecting lower-income households—especially when it comes to utilities, healthcare, and groceries.
“When the rent goes up, we feel it. When groceries go up, we feel it. When our insurance goes up, we feel it,” Martinez said. “There’s no cushion. One emergency—one car repair or medical bill—and we’d be in real trouble.”
For families like hers, the gap between income and housing cost is not abstract; it’s a monthly balancing act that grows more precarious with every increase in rent or essential expense.
| Year | Avg. Rent ($) | Yearly Income ($) | Monthly Income ($) | Monthly Income Adjusted | Rent-to-Income Ratio (%) | Adjusted Percentage |
| 2015 | 754 | 55,245 | 4,604 | 3,683 | 16.40% | 20.50% |
| 2016 | 756 | 55,364 | 4,614 | 3,691 | 16.40% | 20.50% |
| 2017 | 738 | 56,706 | 4,726 | 3,781 | 15.60% | 19.50% |
| 2018 | 786 | 58,183 | 4,849 | 3,879 | 16.20% | 20.30% |
| 2019 | 860 | 58,884 | 4,907 | 3,926 | 17.50% | 21.90% |
| 2020 | 822 | 61,606 | 5,134 | 4,107 | 16.00% | 20% |
| 2021 | 892 | 62,151 | 5,179 | 4,143 | 17.20% | 21.50% |
| 2022 | 875 | 61,615 | 5,135 | 4,108 | 17.00% | 21.30% |
| 2023 | 965 | 62,546 | 5,212 | 4,170 | 18.50% | 23.10% |
| 2024 | 1,055 | ~63,000 | ~5,250 | ~4200 | 20.10% | 25.10% |
| 2025 | 1,082 | ~63,000 | ~5,250 | ~4200 | 20.60% | 25.80% |
*Note that all percentages are based on Wisconsin State and Federal Income Tax brackets for persons who are single filers
*All rental data accrued for this article are based on one-bedroom apartments in Green Bay, WI
Figure 2: Full Data Set