Shawano, WI

Shawano, WI presents a decision record with direct but nonparallel evidence: 45,291 residents, a current Zillow price-and-rent snapshot, household-income and rent-benchmark measures, labor and construction data, sale-listing conditions, migration and mortgage-occupancy evidence, and FEMA risk data. The key limitation is decisive for comparative treatment. Zillow does not publish enough history here to calculate a trailing-12-month rent change. Accordingly, Shawano is unranked and this report assigns no score and no rank; its purpose is to identify what the available measures do and do not settle for a renter, landlord, or small investor. The useful reading is cross-sectional and source-specific, not a conclusion about future rent or value.

At June 30, 2026, Zillow's home-value index is $282,344, with a supplied year-over-year change of 10.46%, while its asking-rent index is $1,150. The supplied gross yield is 4.89%. These figures put a current value measure beside a current asking-rent measure, but the absent 12-month Zillow rent change prevents a like-for-like statement about whether rents have risen, fallen, or been unchanged over that interval. Zillow's rent scope is asking rents and its value scope is a home-value index; neither item is presented here as a signed-lease series or a transaction-price series. The notable tension is therefore not proof of a trend: measured value growth is available, whereas measured rent momentum is not.

Census ACS places median household income at $66,189, alongside a rent-to-income measure of 20.85% and a price-to-income measure of 4.27. HUD's FY2026 two-bedroom Fair Market Rent is $973. Zillow's $1,150 asking rent equals 1.182 times that HUD benchmark, a calculated excess of 18.2%. This is an affordability boundary rather than a universal affordability finding. Census reports a median household-income measure, HUD supplies a two-bedroom rent benchmark, and Zillow supplies an asking-rent index; their differing definitions and unit bases matter. The comparison identifies a gap worth understanding, but it does not show any particular household's housing burden or any particular unit's rent.

Supply and market-tempo indicators do not deliver a single directional reading. BLS LAUS reports metro labor change of -0.14% over the 12 months through May 2026. The Census Building Permits Survey records 98 total permits in 2026 year to date through M06, or 2.16 per 1,000 residents, with zero in the 5-plus-unit category. Redfin, as of May 1, 2026, shows 3.8 months of supply versus 3.9 previously, 53 median days on market versus 45, a 99.21% sale-to-list ratio, and 18.25% of listings with price drops versus 21.09%. The supplied changes are a 0.1-month lower supply reading, 8 additional days on market, and a 2.84-percentage-point lower price-drop share. BLS is labor evidence, Census Building Permits is permitted-supply evidence, and Redfin is for-sale listing evidence; together, they show mixed measures rather than one established condition for rentals.

IRS and HMDA answer narrower questions about movement and financed purchase occupancy. IRS county-to-county tax-return migration, aggregated to the market, shows 1,014 moved in and 1,009 moved out, for a net migration of 5. The supplied incoming AGI is $55,857, outgoing AGI is $50,860, and the stated gap is $4,997. HMDA's 2024 purchase-mortgage occupancy evidence counts 404 purchases, including 36 investor purchases, a share of 8.91%. The near-balanced IRS flow does not establish rental demand, and the HMDA share does not describe all housing acquisitions or all landlords. Still, the sources distinguish a small net migration measure from a specific financed-purchase investor measure, preventing either from standing in for the other.

FEMA adds a risk lens that cannot be read as a property-level cost quote. FEMA's National Risk Index identifies inland flood, a water hazard, as the top hazard and supplies a risk score of 58.1 plus a climate loss ratio of 0.001049 in its expected-annual-loss evidence. Those are area-level risk indicators, not evidence of exposure, insurance pricing, repair expense, or loss at a specific address. The packet contains no insurance-premium, tax, utility, maintenance, or other operating-cost figure to set beside the FEMA measures. Thus the available cost-level evidence is limited to the climate loss ratio itself; it should remain distinct from Zillow rent, HUD FMR, purchase values, and gross yield.

The practical diligence synthesis is a set of unresolved comparisons, not a market call. For a renter, the open issue is how current asking rents comparable to the needed unit type relate to the Census median-income measure and HUD's two-bedroom benchmark. For a landlord, the unresolved record is whether a current asking-rent figure remains coherent when viewed with the missing Zillow rent history, the BLS labor change, the permits composition, and Redfin's differing supply, days-on-market, and price-drop signals. For a small investor, the separate questions are whether IRS migration and HMDA investor participation are relevant to the intended purchase context and whether FEMA's inland-flood evidence has a documented cost counterpart. Current dated rent observations, scope-matched unit comparisons, permit detail, and location-specific risk and cost records would answer different gaps. Until then, the evidence supports investigation, not a score, rank, forecast, neighborhood conclusion, or property conclusion.