Greenville, OH

Greenville, Ohio’s metropolitan or micropolitan statistical area has a usable but incomplete decision record: its population is 51,594, and the supplied indicators span rents, values, income, labor, construction, resale conditions, migration, mortgage occupancy and hazard exposure. The key limitation is Zillow history: Zillow does not publish enough history here to calculate a trailing-12-month rent change. Because that change is unavailable, this report does not assign a score or rank to Greenville. The purpose is therefore narrower than a market call: identify where contemporaneous price, rent and resale evidence agree, where they conflict, and which source definitions still prevent a renter, landlord or small investor from treating the figures as a completed decision.

Zillow’s 2026-06-30 home-value index is $222,495, with price up 8.36% year over year, while its asking-rent index is $794 on the same date. The supplied gross yield of 4.28% connects those two levels, but it is a gross price-rent relationship rather than a measure of net cash flow. The supplied price-to-income figure is 3.45; read with the Census ACS income figure below, it frames purchase cost relative to an area-wide income statistic, not a borrower qualification result. The central Zillow tension is temporal: the value series has a stated year-over-year change, whereas the rent series has no usable 12-month change. A current rent level cannot establish rent momentum, and the observed value change cannot stand in for it.

The Census ACS reports median household income of $64,486. At the supplied rent-to-income ratio of 14.78%, the Zillow asking-rent level sits in a different measurement frame from household income; the ratio does not show an individual household’s actual rent burden. HUD’s FY2026 two-bedroom Fair Market Rent is $973. Zillow’s $794 asking-rent index is 81.6% of that HUD benchmark, a $179 difference. That gap is informative as a boundary between a Zillow asking-rent index and HUD’s Fair Market Rent benchmark, not proof that all advertised units cost less, that all renters pay the Zillow figure, or that a given household qualifies for housing. Census ACS, HUD and Zillow are answering adjacent affordability questions with different definitions. The missing rent trend matters here because the current gap to HUD cannot reveal whether that boundary has widened or narrowed.

Labor and supply observations complicate the price and rent snapshot. BLS LAUS shows metro jobs down 0.84% over the 12 months to 2026-05. Census Building Permits Survey reports 54 total permits in 2026 year to date through M06, or 1.05 per 1,000 people, with zero in the supplied 5-plus category. Those permit data describe permitted new supply, not completed or occupied homes. Redfin’s 2026-05 resale reading shows 1.8 months of supply against 3.4 previously, a 1.6-month reduction, and median days on market of 38 against 50 previously. Yet the same Redfin reading shows price drops on 35.11% of listings, versus 23.01% previously, while sale-to-list is 96.92%. Faster turnover and tighter listed supply appear beside more price reductions and a negative job change. None of these series identifies the mix or condition of listings, so their tension is more decision-relevant than any single signal.

Demand-side records also resist a simple reading. IRS county-to-county tax-return migration, aggregated to the market, lists 906 movers in and 1,000 movers out, for net migration of -94. The associated inbound AGI is $48,917 and outbound AGI is $49,357, leaving an AGI gap of -$440. These IRS fields describe recorded tax-return migration and associated income measures; they do not isolate housing-driven moves. HMDA, by contrast, is purchase-mortgage occupancy evidence. In 2024 it records 447 total purchases, including 35 investor purchases, for an investor share of 7.83%. The HMDA share quantifies participation within those recorded purchases, while IRS captures movement across counties. They cannot be combined into a demand balance, and neither source establishes why movers left or why purchase participants chose a tenure.

FEMA’s National Risk Index adds a separate exposure dimension. FEMA identifies inland flood as the top hazard, classifies it as water, reports a National Risk Index score of 52.7, and supplies a climate loss ratio of 0.001082 as expected-annual-loss evidence. These are market-level risk fields, not a statement of a particular site’s flood condition, claim history, policy availability or premium. The packet’s available cost-level evidence is limited to Zillow’s $222,495 value and $794 asking-rent levels, HUD’s $973 Fair Market Rent, and Census ACS median income of $64,486. It supplies no insurance, tax, maintenance, repair, or realized-loss cost. As a result, FEMA’s risk figures cannot be translated here into a net housing cost, an operating expense, or a property-specific hazard bill.

Taken together, the file supports a due-diligence agenda rather than a directional conclusion. For a renter, the unresolved comparison is between the Zillow asking-rent index and the HUD Fair Market Rent definition, including what portion of currently available rentals each measure represents. For a landlord or small investor, the unresolved comparison is between the gross 4.28% price-rent relationship and the omitted cost categories, alongside the conflicting Redfin, BLS, Census Building Permits, IRS and HMDA signals. The next factual record to investigate is date-aligned local evidence that can distinguish advertised rent from executed lease terms, permitted supply from completions, and listing reductions from closing outcomes, without substituting one source for another. It is also material to establish how FEMA’s inland-flood measure applies at the relevant geography before converting any market metric into a cost assumption. Zillow through 2026-06-30, BLS through 2026-05, Census Building Permits through M06, Redfin at 2026-05-01, and HMDA in 2024 are not a common period. That misalignment, plus the unavailable 12-month Zillow rent change, is why no score, rank, forecast, or transaction conclusion is assigned.