https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxHlYfk1c4g
This seems to fit here nicely
Printable View
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxHlYfk1c4g
This seems to fit here nicely
I’m listing my current place near Bend in a week or two; just had my offer accepted on a place in Redmond. Last time I took this risk, I had two houses for 2.75 years. I hate gambling, but here I am again. Wish me luck!
It’s always scary. Best of luck! Is your purchase offer contingent on the sale of your other property?Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyoverland Captive
Shoot me a PM with the address and I’ll keep an eye on it. I have a few buyers I’m representing in central Oregon at the moment.
PM sent.
Got it and replied. Although for some reason it didn’t record a sent copy, so let me know if it doesn’t come through and I’ll resend.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyoverland Captive
Danno, I saw a couple things about you having shared custody of your daughter so I assumed you were separated. Good for you getting out and skiing. Healthy outlets are key for my mental health. I hope the decree provides closure.
Got it; thanks.
I think the most desirable locations will take the longest to drop (and won't drop as far) but I've yet to experience where the pendulum swings so fast, and so far to one side, without it swinging way back the other way at some point. America is filled with sheeple and so many don't have the discipline to not follow the heard when they see their neighbor get a new boat, RV, deck, car, 2nd home, etc (especially when the government was the one buying all the toys with their free handouts). Lumber shot up and has since crashed. Car prices shot up and are in the process of crashing (my wife and I had six cars in 2020 and sold 2 of them for more than we paid and are waiting for the right deals before repurchasing). 2023-2024 are going to be interesting to see how far the housing pendulum swings back. Pricing may be sticky in prime areas but as frothy as it got, I just don't see how the pendulum doesn't swing back, and if history is any indication, it usually overshoots people's expectations.
Disagree, as others have said, many areas are way up from April 2020 (not mine) and those areas will likely not come back to January 2020 levels unless there is mass unemployment.
Lots of new COVID transplants in the RFV would take exception to this. 3+ years here and we still don't see them at community events.Quote:
Originally Posted by summit
I tend to agree. It would take a deep and lengthy recession for housing prices to collapse. And then who is buying? Maybe there will be some pain in the Silicon Valley area with all those tech layoffs.Quote:
Originally Posted by liv2ski
Sample size of one, but we bought our current home in 7/20 (Denver area).
We're currently up 26% from our purchase price, and down 12% from the peak (6/22).
NEW 19 HRS AGO
2,190 VIEWS
What's considered desirable what isn't desirable? Osb is less than 12 bucks a sheet right now it'll go to 15 in May. Was selling for 80 a sheet over a year ago. Housing prices will adjust just like sheets of glue and chipped up wood parts that is highly toxic
My town has had one new listing come on the mls since Thanksgiving. One.
Small town NH with about 2000 units total but still, that is crazy low inventory. Naturally bidding war ensued and was under contract by noon same day. This is despite interest rates rising.
This is the future I think, at least for decent locales. Between everyone locking in mortgage rates we may never see again over the past two years, the lack of new builds due to nimbys, and overall population growth the supply side is going to keep prices super high in any decent market.
I keep hearing this story repeated over and over but here are some numbers for those interested.
https://wolfstreet.com/2023/02/02/wh...census-bureau/
I bet there are a lot of vacant beachfront places available cheap in February on airbnb.
We just need more houses built. We're in the hole pretty hard and with WFH there's job capacity for areas that didn't have much going on previously.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdironRider
However, without meaningful pushes from states (like you're seeing Mass doing and now this is coming out of CA - https://darrellowens.substack.com/p/...-zoning-powers ) the inventory is not going to get built.
That said, I'm also in a town of 2000 in NH and this is one of the major topics we're talking through in planning board as 2 acre zoned SFRs with the possibility of one small ADU ain't gonna cut it.
We don’t need more houses. We need more deed restricted apartment buildings and townhouses that can never go condo.
Worker housing. Please.
Actually agree on this. I should have said "more units"Quote:
Originally Posted by Core Shot
…..just not in your neighborhood right……
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
To be fair, while NIMBYism is certainly an issue in and of itself, there are some notable downsides to just forcing housing in places.
1) It is pretty damn expensive to build worker housing in HCOL areas, which means inherently fewer units get built which doesn't solve the problem.
2) In a sort of reverse NIMBY mentality, there is a very high level of entitlement for the quality of worker housing in HCOL areas. Anyone who has lived in a ski town knows what I'm talking about. If it isn't a 4 bed, 3 bath detached on acreage in a prime location for 1k a month that also allows their rescue pitbull to roam around you get gripes, or even in some instances no takers. There needs to be a certain level of understanding that subsidized housing is going to be a tradeoff, and that tradeoff is most likely going to be location and size.
3) You need to be cognoscente of the unintended consequences, notably the devaluation of what ultimately is most households largest asset. Dropping a 60 unit apartment building on a culdesac of SFH is going to garner extreme resistance and ultimately make people more resistant to any form of housing solution.
That all said, people are going to need to get over the inherent default of no when it comes to say your neighbor putting in an ADU or reducing zoning requirements on lot size to allow infill housing that fits the character of the neighborhood. It takes lots of tiny solutions to solve a bigger problem.
I feel like we need more affordable rentals and less deed restricted affordable housing. Ski towns have a very transient population that is employed in the basic service levels jobs and those are the ones that are hard to fill when people can't find housing.
As I said, I'm on my local planning board and continually advocate for loosening restrictions and am in the process of writing up some changes to our zoning that will make it easier in areas that are a (long) stones throw from my own house.Quote:
Originally Posted by nickwm21
I'd also not really agree with AdironRider - while some are like that, many just want the option of a smaller unit (retirees, young people etc.) or something remotely affordable as most smaller areas don't have anything but 3-4 bedroom houses.
I'd also say ski towns are structurally different as you have a major AirBnB factor as well as much higher second homeownership numbers.
No location is exactly the same, my comments do not apply everywhere equally.Quote:
Originally Posted by schuss
That said, I think my point still stands that if you have a street of 3-4 bedroom houses, suddenly changing the composition of the neighborhood with a triplex or much smaller housing is going to see resistance, and I don't find that completely unreasonable. You need to be able to adapt different solutions to different areas. All real estate is local and what have you.
I think a large part of the problem is trying to come up with grand solutions and not multiple small ones.
Ski towns are certainly different, but the entitlement issue still exists. If people don't have to bear the actual costs they are going to want more and more. That is human nature.
Ban home offices. Those rooms should be bedrooms for government assisted housing tenants. Those tenants should also be adopted and you have to take their surname. It's only fair.
Several states have just overridden the SFH zoning and the default in residential zones is 4 units or smaller and allowing ADUs. Most municipalities seem to have enacted additional rules to try to get them to fit the character of the city. This was in response to entrenched local interests holding back the production of additional units.
Transient workers just need dorms or relatively cheap apartments they can spilt. See: off campus college housing.
The big thing in OR is that the GOV just declared a state of emergency with respect to homelessness and suspended a bunch of development rules.
To Simples comment: everything around me seems to be 2500-4000k SF with 4 bedrooms and 3 baths. Crazy to me.
https://coloradosun.com/2023/02/02/t...ural-rezoning/Quote:
Originally Posted by nickwm21
pretty much it
the unfortunate reality is that alot of these pie in the sky do gooder politicians don't know shit about anything other than saying magic words to make people feel good
in summit county they swapped 50 acres of land w the forest circus to build affordable housing the local politicians were tripping over themselves to smile in front of the camera
ten years later not one apt has been built because no one thought about sewer water and traffic as well as the costs associated with them
now they think they can build their own sewer and water system ummmm do you know how much that will cost for 500 - 1000 housing units?????
the telluride development is a great idea but where does all the shit go? I guess rainbows and unicorns make it all disappear into the green environment kinda like the much heralded alta verde green built apt complex in breckenridge whose snow covered solar panels never get cleaned off while half of them are in the buidings own shadow
politicians being developers is a bad idea
Seems like just your standard case of NIMBYism, unless any Telluride locals want to chime in: https://coloradosun.com/2023/02/02/t...ural-rezoning/
I'd agree with much of what Adironrider said regarding what locals want. Shared walls? -"hell no", is the attitude of most.
Edit- FastFred is faster.
Lots of small change is the norm for real estate/community changes. All the old victorians didn't become multifamilies overnight.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdironRider
A lot of people seek to freeze their community in time, ignoring that by trying to do so in desirable areas you ensure only rich people can live there rather than a healthy mix.
What I'm potentially targeting is more density where it's already busy. It's not like people will scramble to build multifamily units on dead end roads. That said, the reflexive reaction we get is always "you're destroying the rural character!"
The area is growing and will continue to grow. That ship has left the dock and set sail.
so what is rural character?
is that where you build or buy a nice big house out in the country then complain ever spring because (in the west) the farmer burns the ditches? Or back east/mid west where they spread shit all over the fields for weeks on end before planting and you don't like the smoke and smells?
I lost a beautiful private little wooded area years ago dirt bike trails booters good ole place they bulldozed aspen groves and built multi million dollar homes it was a bummer to lose that plot of land
If you don’t put in multi families eventually the neighborhood becomes tear downs for millionaires, which the existing 3-4 bed SFH owners also bitterly resent and complain about.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdironRider
Washington legislature is currently considering whether to allow four plexes on all parcels within cities greater than 6,000 people. 6 plexes if near transit. As I understand, only CA and OR have passed similar legislation.Quote:
Originally Posted by oldnew_guy
As it stands, Seattle currently allows up to two ADUs on every SFH parcel in the city (one attached, and one detached).
Same thing happened here in my former 'hood. Kids used to build little dirt tracks on the parcel of land. Then some big developer came in and bought, threw some cash at the local city council, and magically got it rezoned. Except they didn't quite build multi-million dollar homes. But they built enough houses per acre to make it multi-million dollars worth of homes per acre.Quote:
Originally Posted by fastfred
House up the road from here, nice place, could use some updates, not amazing but it does have a killer view, went up for $2.5M and apparently was under contract in a day. I figured it was at least half a mil overpriced. At least. So, I dunno.
https://www.compass.com/listing/1919...8917264598481/
And a septic that doesn't cover all buildings on the property.
Million-dollar view I guess.
Nice looking property and lot. Not surprised it would go for that much. Location, location, location.Quote:
Originally Posted by ötzi
I think working in the right direction is helpful, even if [when viewed in a vacuum] your cost per sq ft is inefficient compared to other markets. You can't really change that imbalance unless you have If you have funding sources that are ongoing and sustainable. In APCHA's case: a tax on sold free-market houses that goes into a large fund to continuously build housing.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdironRider
#2 is certainly not an issue here. You have 30-70+ families in a lottery for any unit that comes up in the system. Out of 1652 owned units in APCHA, ~1200 are condos with shared walls, etc. Sure - we all want a SFH eventually but even subsidized here they are $500k-$2M. We paid $262k last year for our 1700sq ft 3bd/2ba. It's been a huge help for our family and I doubt we'll really be able to "move up" from it as time goes on.
Doesn't this subsidized housing in ski towns just cause even more people to want to move there? That would be pretty sweet to get a condo in Aspen for $262. That same place in Seattle would go for $700k plus. The subsidized housing is great for people who score it, but sucks for everyone else. Also, how do we really know the people who get this subsidized housing really need it? What if they inherit money or have a trust? What if they listen to LeeLau and get rich in the stock market? Do they periodically have to resubmit proof of their poorness? There are ways rich people can make themselves appear poor on paper.