Throughout all the doom and gloom COVID 19 this and that, the local real estate market chugs along. Volume is way down but it is down on both sides of the market, supply is down and demand is down and it seems in a nearly equal fashion.
Prices are holding steady and the market will survive this providing we can get back to work in May. I am holding out hope that the Governor here in Washington State will hold the line at the current "stay home" mandate till May 4th and then relax things so people can return to some sense of normality as well as normal income flow.
Everything set on the shoulders of america's governors and the Feds as they decide whether to extend the "crisis" or put us back to work. Stay tuned America, this is big.
Musings on the state of the market with tips, information and a little fun.
Showing posts with label jobs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label jobs. Show all posts
Friday, April 10, 2020
Friday, March 15, 2019
Unincorporated Growth Driving Need for Annexation
The Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) for Vancouver is being built out out a rapid pace. This is creating an ever increasing urban population in unincorporated areas. The level of services and infrastructure provided at the county level is rarely as solid as that at a municipal level, yet Vancouver is nearly HALF unincorporated and will likely be more than half in the next decade if the city and county don't pull their heads out of the dark and stinky.
This is not intended as a insult to the Clark County government but rather more of an urban planning and development issue. Right now Vancouver is made up of land spread across more than a dozen zip codes with roughly 325,000 residents. Of those only 57% live in the incorporated city of Vancouver. It is safe to say that 90% of those living outside the city limits are living in a mostly urbanized area. Sure there are several thousand living in the "country" out in Proebstel and north of Barberton, but the overwhelming majority are in underdeveloped URBAN unincorporated areas that for the most part, are not well planned out communities. This is unacceptable behavior at the government level both City and County.
The city of Vancouver is already the de facto second largest city in the state. If the city would complete the Orchards annexation that was supposed be done over a decade ago the city would be the actual in-fact second largest in the state. Why does this matter? Simply put, large cities are noticed by companies looking to expand, move their HQ, build factories, and create JOBS, good jobs, not just service sector jobs. More than 50,000 Clark County residents commute into Oregon (mostly to Portland) to work each day. I would venture a bet that NONE of them are happy about the drive, nor paying Oregon's egregiously abusive state income tax. It is too easy to bring jobs here, yet our leaders seem to be a bit uninterested. To the great credit of the the city and the last three Mayors, the downtown and waterfront renewal has been outstanding and there are not enough kudos to go round for it.
Vancouver has an excellent port, wonderful rail connections, substantial amounts of available industrial land, better schools (than Portland), better quality of life, lower cost of living, frankly it's better in every measurable metric than Portland. Yet there go those 50,000 plus residents driving across that crappy old bridge into the clutches of the Rose City. I blame our county and city leaders. They are failing us on this botched annexation schedule and on jobs.
We need not wait for the new bridge, in fact if we took half of those commuters off the bridges we wouldn't need to replace it anyway, other than the fact that it is old. Oregon is making a move to "punish" Vancouver and Clark County commuters by trying to toll I-5 and I-205. Originally they wanted to toll the area south of Portland, but a new movement targeting Clark County has arisen with a notion to toll the North Portland and NE Portland areas instead.
Clark County and in particular Vancouver needs to focus on attracting medium to large employers from Portland and Washington County and beyond the region. I'm referring to companies with skilled labor and professional positions that pay well. I'm not talking about little 50-100 employee ops although those are fine, we can attract bigger 500-1000 employee operations, we have the space, and their employees will be MUCH happier on the north shore of the mighty Columbia. Portland is not exactly business friendly. Getting noticed is a big part of the equation, the Waterfront has attracted attention for the better and now we need to annex those areas already served by Vancouver's city utilities and move from mid-size to large city without a single new resident moving in. It's not about more growth, it's about capitalizing on the growth we have already had. Vancouver is already a large city, the people are already here, the city just hasn't recognized them yet.
 |
| UGB Map from City of Vancouver Website |
The city of Vancouver is already the de facto second largest city in the state. If the city would complete the Orchards annexation that was supposed be done over a decade ago the city would be the actual in-fact second largest in the state. Why does this matter? Simply put, large cities are noticed by companies looking to expand, move their HQ, build factories, and create JOBS, good jobs, not just service sector jobs. More than 50,000 Clark County residents commute into Oregon (mostly to Portland) to work each day. I would venture a bet that NONE of them are happy about the drive, nor paying Oregon's egregiously abusive state income tax. It is too easy to bring jobs here, yet our leaders seem to be a bit uninterested. To the great credit of the the city and the last three Mayors, the downtown and waterfront renewal has been outstanding and there are not enough kudos to go round for it.
Vancouver has an excellent port, wonderful rail connections, substantial amounts of available industrial land, better schools (than Portland), better quality of life, lower cost of living, frankly it's better in every measurable metric than Portland. Yet there go those 50,000 plus residents driving across that crappy old bridge into the clutches of the Rose City. I blame our county and city leaders. They are failing us on this botched annexation schedule and on jobs.
We need not wait for the new bridge, in fact if we took half of those commuters off the bridges we wouldn't need to replace it anyway, other than the fact that it is old. Oregon is making a move to "punish" Vancouver and Clark County commuters by trying to toll I-5 and I-205. Originally they wanted to toll the area south of Portland, but a new movement targeting Clark County has arisen with a notion to toll the North Portland and NE Portland areas instead.
Clark County and in particular Vancouver needs to focus on attracting medium to large employers from Portland and Washington County and beyond the region. I'm referring to companies with skilled labor and professional positions that pay well. I'm not talking about little 50-100 employee ops although those are fine, we can attract bigger 500-1000 employee operations, we have the space, and their employees will be MUCH happier on the north shore of the mighty Columbia. Portland is not exactly business friendly. Getting noticed is a big part of the equation, the Waterfront has attracted attention for the better and now we need to annex those areas already served by Vancouver's city utilities and move from mid-size to large city without a single new resident moving in. It's not about more growth, it's about capitalizing on the growth we have already had. Vancouver is already a large city, the people are already here, the city just hasn't recognized them yet.
Friday, October 6, 2017
Crazy Week Ahead!
I have a crazy week ahead my friends so I will be on blogger hiatus till next week. Meanwhile take a look at this:
Although the market is slowing its growth rate just a touch and wages are moving in a better direction, this article still rings true.
The following is an article published nine months ago and based on trending data at that time. The market has softened up a bit, but the rising interest rates coupled with the wage problems discussed in this article could spell trouble if something doesn't give. The President-Elect of the United States is driving at skilled labor jobs and if he is successful that could alleviate the wage to housing slide we have been in for a good long time.
Home prices have returned in most markets to the peaks of 2006-07 but wages have not seen significant increases over that time. Let's hope our economy can start producing real jobs so more Americans can afford a home. In the meantime buyers should pay close attention to rate they perked up in December and appear to have leveled off, for a little while at least.
Fast-Rising Home Prices Plus Slower Wage Growth Could Equal a Problem
By Clare Trapasso | Mar 24, 2016 originally posted here.
As Scooby-Doo would say: Ruh-roh!
Housing prices are rising at a faster pace than wages across the U.S.—and that could spell extra trouble for those looking for a home to call their own, according to a recent RealtyTrac report.
The average worker typically spent about 30.2% of his or her paycheck on the combined mortgages, property taxes, and insurance premiums on a median-price home costing $199,000, according to the report. RealtyTrac looked at housing prices for the first two-and-a-half months of this year as well as U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics wage data from the third quarter of last year, the most recent available, for the report.
That’s a hefty 26.4% over the first quarter of last year.
Home price growth outpaced earnings in nearly two-thirds, or 61%, of the markets tracked in the report.
“We’re heading in a direction where people are no longer going to be able to afford homes,” says RealtyTrac spokesman Daren Blomquist. “The fear: Is this heading in the direction of a housing bubble?”
The numbers are also a big jump from early 2012 when workers plunked down only about 22.2% of their earnings on their new homes. But it’s a significant drop from the titanic 53.2% that homeowners spent at the peak of the pre-collapse real estate market in 2006.
The report looked at public sales deeds in counties with at least 100,000 residents and average earnings data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Affordability was calculated based on the percent of earnings required to meet a 3% down payment (which, in the world of down payments, is pretty low) as well as make payments on the property taxes, insurance premiums, and a 30-year, fixed-rate mortgage for a median-price home.
Lower interest rates on mortgages have kept home buying still reasonably affordable.
But if those rates, along with home prices, continue to rise—while wages don’t—Blomquist worries only the superwealthy will be able to afford to become homeowners. Or prices could plateau or even plummet.
The worst-hit area tracked by the study: Denver. Buyers in that fast-growing city saw the biggest hikes in the percentage of their wages they shelled out to purchase a new home compared with what buyers had paid in the past.
“Our home values are increasing about 1% a month,” says Denver-area real estate agent Kristal Kraft at the Berkshire Group. “It’s insane. I’ve never seen anything like it.”
The Colorado capital was followed by counties in New York City; Omaha, NE; Austin, TX; San Francisco; and St. Louis.
Brooklyn, NY, was ranked the most populated county where homeowners saw the biggest increase in what they forked over for their personal palaces compared with previous years.
The most affordable market for wannabe homeowners was Boston, when looking historically at how much of home buyers’ paychecks went toward the purchase compared with previous years.
Next up were counties in Baltimore; Birmingham, AL; Providence, RI; and Chicago.
Here’s a surprise: The most populated and more affordable county was Los Angeles.
When housing costs rise faster than salaries, workers will often take a closer look at which jobs they can afford to accept and which parts of the country they can afford to live in, says Daniel Shoag, a public policy professor at Harvard University.
“You basically have a situation where it’s not worth it to move to expensive cities, if you don’t have a high-paying job,” he says. Or they’re just loaded.
However, it isn’t “out of whack” for homeowners nationally to spend about 30% of their paychecks for the roof over their heads, he says.
“But it could put the strain on budgets if [prices] continue to rise,” Shoag says.
Clare Trapasso is the senior news editor of realtor.com and an adjunct journalism professor. She previously wrote for a Financial Times publication and the New York Daily News. Contact her at clare.trapasso@move.com. Follow @claretrap
Although the market is slowing its growth rate just a touch and wages are moving in a better direction, this article still rings true.
The following is an article published nine months ago and based on trending data at that time. The market has softened up a bit, but the rising interest rates coupled with the wage problems discussed in this article could spell trouble if something doesn't give. The President-Elect of the United States is driving at skilled labor jobs and if he is successful that could alleviate the wage to housing slide we have been in for a good long time.
Home prices have returned in most markets to the peaks of 2006-07 but wages have not seen significant increases over that time. Let's hope our economy can start producing real jobs so more Americans can afford a home. In the meantime buyers should pay close attention to rate they perked up in December and appear to have leveled off, for a little while at least.
Fast-Rising Home Prices Plus Slower Wage Growth Could Equal a Problem
By Clare Trapasso | Mar 24, 2016 originally posted here.
As Scooby-Doo would say: Ruh-roh!
Housing prices are rising at a faster pace than wages across the U.S.—and that could spell extra trouble for those looking for a home to call their own, according to a recent RealtyTrac report.
The average worker typically spent about 30.2% of his or her paycheck on the combined mortgages, property taxes, and insurance premiums on a median-price home costing $199,000, according to the report. RealtyTrac looked at housing prices for the first two-and-a-half months of this year as well as U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics wage data from the third quarter of last year, the most recent available, for the report.
That’s a hefty 26.4% over the first quarter of last year.
Home price growth outpaced earnings in nearly two-thirds, or 61%, of the markets tracked in the report.
“We’re heading in a direction where people are no longer going to be able to afford homes,” says RealtyTrac spokesman Daren Blomquist. “The fear: Is this heading in the direction of a housing bubble?”
The numbers are also a big jump from early 2012 when workers plunked down only about 22.2% of their earnings on their new homes. But it’s a significant drop from the titanic 53.2% that homeowners spent at the peak of the pre-collapse real estate market in 2006.
The report looked at public sales deeds in counties with at least 100,000 residents and average earnings data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Affordability was calculated based on the percent of earnings required to meet a 3% down payment (which, in the world of down payments, is pretty low) as well as make payments on the property taxes, insurance premiums, and a 30-year, fixed-rate mortgage for a median-price home.
Lower interest rates on mortgages have kept home buying still reasonably affordable.
But if those rates, along with home prices, continue to rise—while wages don’t—Blomquist worries only the superwealthy will be able to afford to become homeowners. Or prices could plateau or even plummet.
The worst-hit area tracked by the study: Denver. Buyers in that fast-growing city saw the biggest hikes in the percentage of their wages they shelled out to purchase a new home compared with what buyers had paid in the past.
“Our home values are increasing about 1% a month,” says Denver-area real estate agent Kristal Kraft at the Berkshire Group. “It’s insane. I’ve never seen anything like it.”
The Colorado capital was followed by counties in New York City; Omaha, NE; Austin, TX; San Francisco; and St. Louis.
Brooklyn, NY, was ranked the most populated county where homeowners saw the biggest increase in what they forked over for their personal palaces compared with previous years.
The most affordable market for wannabe homeowners was Boston, when looking historically at how much of home buyers’ paychecks went toward the purchase compared with previous years.
Next up were counties in Baltimore; Birmingham, AL; Providence, RI; and Chicago.
Here’s a surprise: The most populated and more affordable county was Los Angeles.
When housing costs rise faster than salaries, workers will often take a closer look at which jobs they can afford to accept and which parts of the country they can afford to live in, says Daniel Shoag, a public policy professor at Harvard University.
“You basically have a situation where it’s not worth it to move to expensive cities, if you don’t have a high-paying job,” he says. Or they’re just loaded.
However, it isn’t “out of whack” for homeowners nationally to spend about 30% of their paychecks for the roof over their heads, he says.
“But it could put the strain on budgets if [prices] continue to rise,” Shoag says.
Clare Trapasso is the senior news editor of realtor.com and an adjunct journalism professor. She previously wrote for a Financial Times publication and the New York Daily News. Contact her at clare.trapasso@move.com. Follow @claretrap
Friday, August 18, 2017
Housing and Jobs in Symbiosis
Our local housing market, like that of many areas, has been in a state of an abrupt climb in price. This has been largely driven by low rates and a short supply. Our area is also experiencing an influx of "migrants" from other states seeking to soak up the delicious Pacific Northwest. This however is not enough to sustain the rapid run up in home values.
Good paying jobs must be in abundance for the upward mobility of pricing to continue. We are starting to see a bit of a slowdown in the increase of valuations and frankly this is a healthy trend. What the area needs now is an increase in HIGH-PAYING jobs. Not just jobs, but good jobs. Factories, High-Tech, etc.
This area has a good bit of these, but demand is stripping away at supply for high-quality jobs as new people flood into the area. At some point housing will take a hit and it may be sooner than later. Generally a large housing crash needs more than just typical market trends. The events of 2008-09 were driven by major economic forces well beyond the normal scope of real estate trends and fluctuations. I do not see any major corrections on the near horizon but I do see a softening in the seller's market.
By this time next year we may be in a near neutral market with modest, healthy appreciation and sellers a little more willing to work with buyers. The current high median resale value is pushing many buyers out of the marketplace, and that will eventually erode the excessive demand.
Without an influx of new higher-paying employment opportunities the demand will falloff faster and if if falls too fast, that can lead to a buyer's market. Every local government agency should be hyper-focused on creating jobs int he private sector. Private sector jobs are good for every industry including the real estate market.
Good paying jobs must be in abundance for the upward mobility of pricing to continue. We are starting to see a bit of a slowdown in the increase of valuations and frankly this is a healthy trend. What the area needs now is an increase in HIGH-PAYING jobs. Not just jobs, but good jobs. Factories, High-Tech, etc.
This area has a good bit of these, but demand is stripping away at supply for high-quality jobs as new people flood into the area. At some point housing will take a hit and it may be sooner than later. Generally a large housing crash needs more than just typical market trends. The events of 2008-09 were driven by major economic forces well beyond the normal scope of real estate trends and fluctuations. I do not see any major corrections on the near horizon but I do see a softening in the seller's market.
By this time next year we may be in a near neutral market with modest, healthy appreciation and sellers a little more willing to work with buyers. The current high median resale value is pushing many buyers out of the marketplace, and that will eventually erode the excessive demand.
Without an influx of new higher-paying employment opportunities the demand will falloff faster and if if falls too fast, that can lead to a buyer's market. Every local government agency should be hyper-focused on creating jobs int he private sector. Private sector jobs are good for every industry including the real estate market.
Friday, January 13, 2017
Wages still not keeping up with housing.
The following is an article published nine months ago and based on trending data at that time. The market has softened up a bit, but the rising interest rates coupled with the wage problems discussed in this article could spell trouble if something doesn't give. The President-Elect of the United States is driving at skilled labor jobs and if he is successful that could alleviate the wage to housing slide we have been in for a good long time.
Home prices have returned in most markets to the peaks of 2006-07 but wages have not seen significant increases over that time. Let's hope our economy can start producing real jobs so more Americans can afford a home. In the meantime buyers should pay close attention to rate they perked up in December and appear to have leveled off, for a little while at least.
Fast-Rising Home Prices Plus Slower Wage Growth Could Equal a Problem
By Clare Trapasso | Mar 24, 2016 originally posted here.
As Scooby-Doo would say: Ruh-roh!
Housing prices are rising at a faster pace than wages across the U.S.—and that could spell extra trouble for those looking for a home to call their own, according to a recent RealtyTrac report.
The average worker typically spent about 30.2% of his or her paycheck on the combined mortgages, property taxes, and insurance premiums on a median-price home costing $199,000, according to the report. RealtyTrac looked at housing prices for the first two-and-a-half months of this year as well as U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics wage data from the third quarter of last year, the most recent available, for the report.
That’s a hefty 26.4% over the first quarter of last year.
Home price growth outpaced earnings in nearly two-thirds, or 61%, of the markets tracked in the report.
“We’re heading in a direction where people are no longer going to be able to afford homes,” says RealtyTrac spokesman Daren Blomquist. “The fear: Is this heading in the direction of a housing bubble?”
The numbers are also a big jump from early 2012 when workers plunked down only about 22.2% of their earnings on their new homes. But it’s a significant drop from the titanic 53.2% that homeowners spent at the peak of the pre-collapse real estate market in 2006.
The report looked at public sales deeds in counties with at least 100,000 residents and average earnings data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Affordability was calculated based on the percent of earnings required to meet a 3% down payment (which, in the world of down payments, is pretty low) as well as make payments on the property taxes, insurance premiums, and a 30-year, fixed-rate mortgage for a median-price home.
Lower interest rates on mortgages have kept home buying still reasonably affordable.
But if those rates, along with home prices, continue to rise—while wages don’t—Blomquist worries only the superwealthy will be able to afford to become homeowners. Or prices could plateau or even plummet.
The worst-hit area tracked by the study: Denver. Buyers in that fast-growing city saw the biggest hikes in the percentage of their wages they shelled out to purchase a new home compared with what buyers had paid in the past.
“Our home values are increasing about 1% a month,” says Denver-area real estate agent Kristal Kraft at the Berkshire Group. “It’s insane. I’ve never seen anything like it.”
The Colorado capital was followed by counties in New York City; Omaha, NE; Austin, TX; San Francisco; and St. Louis.
Brooklyn, NY, was ranked the most populated county where homeowners saw the biggest increase in what they forked over for their personal palaces compared with previous years.
The most affordable market for wannabe homeowners was Boston, when looking historically at how much of home buyers’ paychecks went toward the purchase compared with previous years.
Next up were counties in Baltimore; Birmingham, AL; Providence, RI; and Chicago.
Here’s a surprise: The most populated and more affordable county was Los Angeles.
When housing costs rise faster than salaries, workers will often take a closer look at which jobs they can afford to accept and which parts of the country they can afford to live in, says Daniel Shoag, a public policy professor at Harvard University.
“You basically have a situation where it’s not worth it to move to expensive cities, if you don’t have a high-paying job,” he says. Or they’re just loaded.
However, it isn’t “out of whack” for homeowners nationally to spend about 30% of their paychecks for the roof over their heads, he says.
“But it could put the strain on budgets if [prices] continue to rise,” Shoag says.
Clare Trapasso is the senior news editor of realtor.com and an adjunct journalism professor. She previously wrote for a Financial Times publication and the New York Daily News. Contact her at clare.trapasso@move.com. Follow @claretrap
Home prices have returned in most markets to the peaks of 2006-07 but wages have not seen significant increases over that time. Let's hope our economy can start producing real jobs so more Americans can afford a home. In the meantime buyers should pay close attention to rate they perked up in December and appear to have leveled off, for a little while at least.
Fast-Rising Home Prices Plus Slower Wage Growth Could Equal a Problem
By Clare Trapasso | Mar 24, 2016 originally posted here.
As Scooby-Doo would say: Ruh-roh!
Housing prices are rising at a faster pace than wages across the U.S.—and that could spell extra trouble for those looking for a home to call their own, according to a recent RealtyTrac report.
The average worker typically spent about 30.2% of his or her paycheck on the combined mortgages, property taxes, and insurance premiums on a median-price home costing $199,000, according to the report. RealtyTrac looked at housing prices for the first two-and-a-half months of this year as well as U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics wage data from the third quarter of last year, the most recent available, for the report.
That’s a hefty 26.4% over the first quarter of last year.
Home price growth outpaced earnings in nearly two-thirds, or 61%, of the markets tracked in the report.
“We’re heading in a direction where people are no longer going to be able to afford homes,” says RealtyTrac spokesman Daren Blomquist. “The fear: Is this heading in the direction of a housing bubble?”
The numbers are also a big jump from early 2012 when workers plunked down only about 22.2% of their earnings on their new homes. But it’s a significant drop from the titanic 53.2% that homeowners spent at the peak of the pre-collapse real estate market in 2006.
The report looked at public sales deeds in counties with at least 100,000 residents and average earnings data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Affordability was calculated based on the percent of earnings required to meet a 3% down payment (which, in the world of down payments, is pretty low) as well as make payments on the property taxes, insurance premiums, and a 30-year, fixed-rate mortgage for a median-price home.
Lower interest rates on mortgages have kept home buying still reasonably affordable.
But if those rates, along with home prices, continue to rise—while wages don’t—Blomquist worries only the superwealthy will be able to afford to become homeowners. Or prices could plateau or even plummet.
The worst-hit area tracked by the study: Denver. Buyers in that fast-growing city saw the biggest hikes in the percentage of their wages they shelled out to purchase a new home compared with what buyers had paid in the past.
“Our home values are increasing about 1% a month,” says Denver-area real estate agent Kristal Kraft at the Berkshire Group. “It’s insane. I’ve never seen anything like it.”
The Colorado capital was followed by counties in New York City; Omaha, NE; Austin, TX; San Francisco; and St. Louis.
Brooklyn, NY, was ranked the most populated county where homeowners saw the biggest increase in what they forked over for their personal palaces compared with previous years.
The most affordable market for wannabe homeowners was Boston, when looking historically at how much of home buyers’ paychecks went toward the purchase compared with previous years.
Next up were counties in Baltimore; Birmingham, AL; Providence, RI; and Chicago.
Here’s a surprise: The most populated and more affordable county was Los Angeles.
When housing costs rise faster than salaries, workers will often take a closer look at which jobs they can afford to accept and which parts of the country they can afford to live in, says Daniel Shoag, a public policy professor at Harvard University.
“You basically have a situation where it’s not worth it to move to expensive cities, if you don’t have a high-paying job,” he says. Or they’re just loaded.
However, it isn’t “out of whack” for homeowners nationally to spend about 30% of their paychecks for the roof over their heads, he says.
“But it could put the strain on budgets if [prices] continue to rise,” Shoag says.
Clare Trapasso is the senior news editor of realtor.com and an adjunct journalism professor. She previously wrote for a Financial Times publication and the New York Daily News. Contact her at clare.trapasso@move.com. Follow @claretrap
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)