Shelbyville, TN

Shelbyville, TN is assessed here as a metropolitan or micropolitan statistical area, not as a claim about any neighborhood or property. The available record describes a market of 52,237 people, with Zillow reporting an asking-rent index and a home-value index as of 2026-06-30. Its central limitation is material: Zillow does not publish a trailing-12-month rent change in this packet. Accordingly, the 12-month rent change is unavailable; Shelbyville remains unranked, and this report does not assign a score or rank. The decision frame is therefore level-based rather than momentum-based: it compares current rent and value measures with income, HUD’s program rent benchmark, employment, construction, sales-market conditions, migration, mortgage occupancy, and FEMA risk evidence while preserving the different definitions and periods behind each source.

At the Zillow level, the home-value index is $334,888 on 2026-06-30, with a reported year-over-year change of 1.32%, while the asking-rent index is $1,576 on the same date. The packet supplies a gross yield of 5.65%, but it does not break that summary into operating costs, financing, vacancy, taxes, or property-level returns. Zillow’s source scope is asking-rent and home-value indexes, so neither field establishes an achieved lease payment or a transaction-specific sale price. The asymmetry in history matters more than the positive home-value change: the price series has a stated annual movement, whereas the Zillow rent series does not. Current rent, value, and gross-yield levels can be inspected; their trailing rent direction cannot.

Census ACS reports median income of $67,225. Against that income reference, the supplied rent-to-income ratio is 0.2813 and price-to-income ratio is 4.98; they are market-level comparisons, not a determination of any household’s budget or eligibility. HUD’s FY2026 two-bedroom Fair Market Rent is $1,017. The Zillow asking-rent index of $1,576 is $559 higher, and the supplied rent-versus-FMR ratio is 1.549. This is an affordability boundary, not a direct mismatch test: HUD identifies a two-bedroom Fair Market Rent benchmark, while Zillow supplies an asking-rent index whose scope is not stated as a two-bedroom measure. Different programs, unit definitions, and purposes keep the two figures from identifying the rent faced by a specific renter.

Labor, building, and listings create a mixed operating backdrop. BLS LAUS reports metro job change of -0.59% for the 12 months to 2026-05. Census Building Permits Survey data show 352 total permitted units in 2026 year-to-date through M06, or 6.74 per 1,000 residents; the packet also reports zero for permits_5p and zero for permits_pct_5p. Redfin, dated 2026-05-01, shows 4.2 months of supply, unchanged from the prior 4.2; median days on market fell to 63 from 78. Yet the sale-to-list ratio is 0.9857 and the price-drop share rose to 0.3109 from 0.2761, an increase of 0.0348, or 3.48 percentage points. Unchanged supply and shorter marketing time coexist with more listed price reductions and a below-list sale-to-list ratio; these indicators are not a uniform reading of sales conditions.

IRS county-to-county tax-return migration, aggregated to this market, records 1,540 moved in and 1,361 moved out, yielding the supplied net migration of 179. Its labeled AGI-in figure is $59,156, versus $48,855 for AGI-out, with a supplied $10,301 gap. These IRS measures describe migratory tax-return evidence rather than the tenure, housing type, or duration of incoming residents. HMDA’s 2024 purchase-mortgage occupancy evidence records 665 purchases, including 64 identified as investor purchases, for an investor share of 0.0962. The migration and HMDA records have different populations and measurement bases: net movement is not proof of owner occupancy, and the HMDA investor share does not establish all investor activity or the stock of investor-owned homes. They sharpen participation questions without resolving housing demand.

FEMA’s National Risk Index supplies the risk screen, naming inland flood as the top hazard and water as its hazard type. The packet’s FEMA evidence gives an NRI risk score of 69.2 and a climate-loss ratio of 0.001792. Those are market-level expected-annual-loss evidence, not an inspection finding, insurance quote, repair estimate, or statement about a particular parcel. The available cost-level context comes instead from Zillow’s $1,576 asking-rent index, Zillow’s $334,888 home-value index, and HUD’s $1,017 FY2026 two-bedroom benchmark. FEMA does not connect its score or loss ratio to either of those market measures in this packet. Thus, risk is present in the evidence base but its potential translation into housing or holding costs remains unspecified.

The practical synthesis is deliberately narrower than a market call. Zillow provides a dated rent/value snapshot and a price change, but no 12-month rent change; Census ACS and HUD locate that snapshot against income and a program benchmark, not household outcomes. BLS, Census Building Permits, and Redfin add contemporaneous but nonidentical labor, construction, and listing signals. IRS and HMDA add movement and mortgage-occupancy evidence, while FEMA adds a hazard screen rather than a cost estimate. The next evidentiary questions are definitional and time-based: whether the Zillow rent index matches the unit concept implicit in the HUD comparison; how the permitted-unit mix is defined; whether Redfin listing behavior aligns with the job and permit periods; what the IRS AGI labels represent; and what FEMA risk-cost documentation exists beyond the index. Until those boundaries are resolved, the record supports neither a trailing-rent-momentum conclusion nor a score or rank.