Census Tract · Ranked #11,153 of 84,120 nationally
Gates Eviction Risk: Elevated
Tract 36055014302 ·
Monroe County, NY · pop 4,716
36055014302 is a census tract in Gates, NY. It scores 7.3/10 for landlords. about one in five of renter households cross the 30%-of-income line, far below the Monroe County average of 46.4%.
Risk score
7.3
Elevated
Confidence 85% · 1–10 scale
Household mix · 100 hh
Burdened renters 1%Stable renters 5%Owners 94%
Tract context
Occupied units1,997
Renter share6.6%
SVI overall0.41
Poverty rate19.0%
Median income$54,003
Percentile rank
Higher percentile = riskier than more peers.
Within parent city
50th percentile
#1 of 1 tracts In Gates
Moderate
Within county
54th percentile
#98 of 210 tracts In Monroe County
Moderate
Within state
40th percentile
#3,239 of 5,394 tracts In New York
Moderate
National
87th percentile
#11,153 of 84,120 tracts In U.S.
High
Geographic context
Risk heat across Gates and the region
Centroid at 43.1564, -77.6924 · click any tract to drill in
Why Gates scores 7.3
9 axes · 1 = landlord-friendly
Local political climate
Inherited from Gates
6.4
Regional political climate
2024 county presidential margin
6.1
State political climate
New York legislature & governorship
7.3
Economic stress
19.0% poverty · this tract
4.8
Supply constraint
$1,525 rent vs county FMR
5.7
Rent control risk
Inherited from Gates
4.0
Eviction process difficulty
State law sets the calendar
7.1
Tenant organizing strength
Inherited from Gates
2.4
Housing court bias
Inherited from Gates
5.9
How Gates compares
Risk score vs. parent city, county, state.
CDC Social Vulnerability Index
SVI percentile: 41
CDC/ATSDR 2022. Higher = more vulnerable. National percentile across 84k tracts.
48%Socioeconomic
87%Household composition
26%Racial/ethnic minority
14%Housing & transportation
Historical context · 1930s redlining
HOLC grade: C: Definitely Declining
This tract sits within an area graded by the Home Owners' Loan Corporation in the 1930s. Grade C meant mixed-race / working-class neighborhoods rated as risky. These designations suppressed minority homeownership for generations and remain a documented predictor of present-day eviction filings and rent burden.
0%Grade A
0%Grade B
1%Grade C
0%Grade D · redlined
Source: Mapping Inequality (americanpanorama.org), 1935-1940 HOLC residential security maps, aggregated to 2020 census tracts by area share. CC BY-NC-SA 4.0.
Crude prevalence of conditions linked to housing loss. Source: CDC PLACES (cwsq-ngmh), 2023 model-based small-area estimates.
13.6%Housing insecurity
8.7%Utility-shutoff threat
16.0%Food insecurity
15.8%SNAP enrollment
8.8%Transit barriers
6.9%No health insurance
16.0%Frequent mental distress
31.5%Any disability
Analysis
What drives eviction risk in Gates
Annualized rent equals 34% of average household income of $54,003, past the 30% affordability line, which thins the margin any screening standard has to work with. Average gross rent is $1,525, 28% below the Gates average. The clearest offset is tenant-organizing strength at 2.4/10.
Running hot, state political climate reads 7.3/10. The poverty rate is 19%, which in this model reads as reduced rent-recovery odds after a judgment.
On the high side, eviction-process difficulty reads 7.1/10. In the 1930s the federal Home Owners' Loan Corporation graded this ground C ("Definitely Declining"). Redlining cut off mortgage credit to whole blocks for decades, and the areas graded D still carry measurably lower ownership and higher rent burden today. Nationally it ranks #11,153 of 84,120 for landlord eviction difficulty.
Only 7% of units are renter-occupied. Rental comparables are thin; price a renewal off the nearest genuine rental sub-market rather than off surrounding sale prices. On the CDC Social Vulnerability Index the tract reads 4.7/10, which tracks how hard a shock lands on the households already here. Of its three components the household composition measure is the most pressured.
Tract-level figures come from the ACS 5-year release and are rebuilt whenever that, the court-record feed, or the statutory ledger behind the score changes.
Frequently asked
About tract 36055014302
Q1
What is the eviction-risk score for census tract 36055014302?
Census tract 36055014302 in Gates scores 7.3/10 (Elevated tier). The Eviction Risk Score blends state law, county filing rates, parent-city politics, and tract-specific rent-to-income ratios + poverty signals.
Q2
What is the average rent in tract 36055014302?
Median gross rent is $1,525/month (ACS 5-year 2023, table B25064). 20% of renter households are cost-burdened.
Q3
What is the poverty rate in tract 36055014302?
19.0% of residents in tract 36055014302 live below the federal poverty line (ACS B17001, 2023). Population: 4,716.
Q4
How socially vulnerable is tract 36055014302?
CDC Social Vulnerability Index ranks this tract in the 41th percentile nationally. Sub-themes: socioeconomic 48th, household 87th, minority 26th, housing 14th.
Q5
What share of households in tract 36055014302 struggle to pay rent?
About 13.6% of adults in this tract reported housing insecurity (could not pay rent or mortgage in the past 12 months), per the CDC PLACES 2023 model-based small-area estimate. 8.7% also reported utility shutoff threats, a frequent precursor to eviction filings.
Q6
How does tract 36055014302 compare to Gates overall?
Tract 36055014302 scores 7.3/10, higher than the parent city of Gates at 5.9/10. City-scale signals (state law, local rent controls, court bias) are inherited from Gates; what makes this tract different are its tract-specific economic stress and supply-constraint sub-scores.
Q7
Was tract 36055014302 historically redlined?
Yes. This tract sits inside an area graded by the Home Owners' Loan Corporation in the 1930s, with a dominant grade of C. 0% of the tract's area was rated D ("Hazardous"), the redlined tier. HOLC redlining systematically denied mortgage credit to Black, immigrant, and working-class neighborhoods and remains a documented predictor of present-day eviction filings, rent burden, and homeownership gaps. Source: Mapping Inequality (americanpanorama.org), Robert K. Nelson et al.