Skip to content
Census Tract · Ranked #54,934 of 84,120 nationally

Chickasaw Point Eviction Risk: Lower

Tract 45073030901 · Oconee County, SC · pop 2,824 · 9% of tract blocks fall in Chickasaw Point

The Lower-tier score of 3.7/10 for census tract 45073030901 reflects conditions in Chickasaw Point, South Carolina. On the national scale it ranks #78,037 of 84,120 for landlord eviction difficulty.

About 11% of renters carry a rent burden of 30% of income or higher, a modest level, and 0% are severely burdened at 50% or more. Average household income is about $59,286 a year. Renters make up 10% of occupied homes.

Risk score
3.2
Lower
Confidence 85% · 1–10 scale
Household mix · 100 hh
Burdened renters 1% Stable renters 9% Owners 90%
Tract context
Occupied units1,354
Renter share10.4%
SVI overall0.23
Poverty rate10.6%
Median income$59,286

Percentile rank

Higher percentile = riskier than more peers.
Within parent city
50 th percentile
Rank, 50th percentileLowHigh
#1 of 1 tracts In Chickasaw Point
Moderate
Within county
11 th percentile
Rank, 11th percentileLowHigh
#18 of 20 tracts In Oconee County
Very Low
Within state
31 th percentile
Rank, 31st percentileLowHigh
#905 of 1,317 tracts In South Carolina
Low
National
35 th percentile
Rank, 35th percentileLowHigh
#54,934 of 84,120 tracts In U.S.
Low
Geographic context

Risk heat across Chickasaw Point and the region

Centroid at 34.5606, -83.0703 · click any tract to drill in

Why Chickasaw Point scores 3.2

9 axes · 1 = landlord-friendly
Local political climate
Inherited from Chickasaw Point
3.4
Regional political climate
2024 county presidential margin
2.6
State political climate
South Carolina legislature & governorship
2.1
Economic stress
10.6% poverty · this tract
2.6
Supply constraint
tract rent vs county FMR
5.0
Rent control risk
Inherited from Chickasaw Point
1.0
Eviction process difficulty
State law sets the calendar
1.6
Tenant organizing strength
Inherited from Chickasaw Point
1.9
Housing court bias
Inherited from Chickasaw Point
2.2

How Chickasaw Point compares

Risk score vs. parent city, county, state.
Chickasaw Point risk score vs. parent city / county / stateThis tract: 3.23.2This tracttract 030901Chickasaw Point: 2.32.3Chickasaw Pointparent cityCounty: 4.34.3Countyavg tract in countyState: 4.04.0Stateavg tract in state
CDC Social Vulnerability Index

SVI percentile: 23

CDC/ATSDR 2022. Higher = more vulnerable. National percentile across 84k tracts.

Eviction filings

Court-record eviction history

Court-validated eviction filings collected from county clerks and consolidated by the Eviction Lab at Princeton University. Filing rate is filings per 100 renter households.1

Historic baseline (2000–2018)

  • 29Total filings over 3 yrs
  • 9.04%Avg annual filing rate
  • 12.2%Peak (2014)
  • 13Filings in 2014 (latest validated)
Filings by year 2010 to 2014
Year-by-year eviction filings in tract 450730309012010: 10 filings (9.35/100 renter HHs)2011: 6 filings (5.61/100 renter HHs)2014: 13 filings (12.15/100 renter HHs)
Comparable tracts

Census tracts with similar eviction risk

Closest by Eviction Risk Score.

CDC PLACES 2023 · health & economic stress

Eviction-adjacent indicators

Crude prevalence of conditions linked to housing loss. Source: CDC PLACES (cwsq-ngmh), 2023 model-based small-area estimates.

Analysis

What drives eviction risk in Chickasaw Point

The heaviest input here is supply constraint at $1/10. That part is specific to this tract, computed from its own rent, income, and poverty figures. Statewide and court-level factors such as eviction-process speed and rent-control exposure are inherited from Chickasaw Point, while the economic and supply signals are measured at the tract level.

Set against its neighbors, this tract scores well below the Oconee County average of 5.2 and below the South Carolina statewide average of 5.5. Within its own county it reads on the safer side for landlords.

In CDC survey modeling, about 7.7% of adults here said they could not pay rent or mortgage at some point in the past year, and 5.1% faced a utility shutoff threat, a common early warning before a filing.

The tract is predominantly White and ranks around the 23rd percentile nationally on the CDC Social Vulnerability Index, a measure of how exposed residents are to housing and economic shocks. That is a relatively low-vulnerability reading.

For a landlord, this is among the easier places to operate: faster process, lighter tenant-protection overhead, and shorter typical cases.

Frequently asked

About tract 45073030901

Q1

What is the eviction-risk score for census tract 45073030901?

Census tract 45073030901 in Chickasaw Point scores 3.2/10 (Lower 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 poverty rate in tract 45073030901?

10.6% of residents in tract 45073030901 live below the federal poverty line (ACS B17001, 2023). Population: 2,824.
Q3

How socially vulnerable is tract 45073030901?

CDC Social Vulnerability Index ranks this tract in the 23th percentile nationally. Sub-themes: socioeconomic 51th, household 41th, minority 0th, housing 9th.
Q4

How many evictions are filed each year in tract 45073030901?

Princeton Eviction Lab recorded 29 eviction filings across 3 validated years in tract 45073030901 (2000-2018). The average annual filing rate is 9.04% of renter households, peaking at 12.2% in 2014. Source: Eviction Lab tract-validated 2024 release.
Q5

What share of households in tract 45073030901 struggle to pay rent?

About 7.7% 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. 5.1% also reported utility shutoff threats, a frequent precursor to eviction filings.
Q6

How does tract 45073030901 compare to Chickasaw Point overall?

Tract 45073030901 scores 3.2/10, higher than the parent city of Chickasaw Point at 2.3/10. City-scale signals (state law, local rent controls, court bias) are inherited from Chickasaw Point; what makes this tract different are its tract-specific economic stress and supply-constraint sub-scores.
Related