Will You Soon Have a City Funded Homeless Camp in Your Backyard?

The answer is : "quite possibly." The Vancouver City Council has made changes to the ordinances that regulate camping in public spaces. They have put into motion a plan to have fenced off "camping areas" to allow up to 40 homeless people camp in a 'controlled' environment with proper sanitation provided. I like the idea of minimizing the environmental impact that street camping has. But last count I saw published in the news was 800 homeless people are in Vancouver on any given night. The City of Vancouver states on their website that approximately 500 people are homeless in the city. Using the lower city number, they would need more than a dozen campsites to accommodate their own estimate. Where will these campsites be located? And what action will the city take to protect residents and companies that are impacted by these "facilities?" No such details are available. Here is a link to a news article about the changes.

These campsites will almost certainly affect property values for home owners and businesses nearby. They won't be building these in the posh neighborhoods on Evergreen Highway will they? Certainly not. These will likely get dumped into middle and lower class neighborhoods causing a decline in neighborhood stability, heath, and safety. These camps will cause a loss of value to property owners that often had to claw their way into this expensive housing market. They had to dump their last few nickels and dimes to buy the house, then pump their heart and soul into making it their home. Now here comes the lazy city council that just punts the homeless problem into their neighborhood.

So what will the city do to impacted residents and businesses? The city will do absolutely NOTHING to protect tax paying residents from the impact of this program unless the concerned citizens of Vancouver show up at City Hall and demand it. This means residents need to show up at City Hall and voice their concerns, and ask the city to release the proposed or approved locations of these camps. If no one stands up to demand accountability, no one will get accountable behavior from elected officials. This camp action is a 'punt' that avoids dealing with the underlying issues that lead to homelessness. Permanent homelessness is not an affordable housing issue as much as it is a drug abuse, and mental health issue. 

People all too often confuse these types of "solutions" with compassion. This is not compassion, this is an action that simply perpetuates the problem, and as witnessed in Portland, brings MORE homeless people into the region seeking the amenities afforded by these structured facilities. No my friends, this is not compassion. The compassionate thing to do is to get these people off the streets and into stable housing. This means providing drug intervention, mental health facilities, and job placement opportunities. 

There are some people who do not wish to be helped, they refuse to accept help and in open defiance will camp on our streets, urinate and defecate in parks, or perhaps worse in a creek that leads to the Columbia River while leaving trash to blow in the wind and clog our waterways ultimately adding to the Pacific Ocean Garbage Island. This campsite plan does at least address the environmental issues, but does not alleviate the problem at all but rather will likely amplify it.

We cannot offer help to those who will not accept it, nor should we offer our compassion to those who refuse it. Enabling people to continue to make bad choices is antithetical to compassion. Yet that is the best that Mayor Anne and the council can offer. 

A firm hand in keeping street camping out of our city is needed here and the money for this idiotic program should be diverted into drug and mental health programs for the homeless and more policing of homeless people that are sometimes a danger to the public. We should be offering help to street people who want to get off the street, and have the police remove illegal campsites with prejudice. Pumping potentially millions of dollars into a program that is more likely to perpetuate and expand the problem is foolish. All of this wasted money comes at the expense of tax paying citizens. 

The wealthy class of elected leaders and their rich donors will not feel the pain of this program. No, the middle class and poor people in Vancouver will bear the burden of increased crime, vandalism, and lower property values. The every day citizen will suffer the most. That is just typical political crap once again dumped in our neighborhoods.

We can do better.

Top photo published by KATU, lower photo published by Clark County News Today

Are Californians Really Driving up Values?

I hear this notion a lot from sellers and buyers. Typically this comes from anecdotal evidence like a buyer says... "I got outbid by a cash buyer from California." California has been the big bad boogeyman in the Northwest for decades now. For many years California real estate prices outpaced growth in the NW leading to an opportunity for Californians to sell or borrow against, their high priced properties and pay cash for similar properties in the NW often outbidding or displacing locals trying to buy the more 'traditional' way using a bank loan.

Much of it was perceived rather than reality, but there was some truth to the notion. The rapid rise in real estate values came to us because the Northwest is desirable. The Californians came here much like mid-westerners went there in droves during the Golden state's post-war boom. In the 1950s and 60s there was ample opportunity in California's booming economy and the weather and scenery was a lot better than most of the USA.

As a consequence to the demand and government actions, during the 1970s California real estate became very expensive. The state began to enact very strict building requirements and regulations that drove the cost of new homes up and demand continued to outstrip supple well into the 1990s. Many in the 31st state started to become unhappy with the crowds, high taxes, traffic, and escalating cost of living. Oregon and Washington among others, were natural targets for the aggrieved in California.

But how much of our housing costs are really being driven by exterior forces such as people coming from California? Maybe not as much as you think. Both Oregon and Washington have emulated to some degree the California regulatory atmosphere. A large chunk of a new home's expenses is permits and government mandates, engineering and such. This was one of the primary drivers in California's rapid housing rise in the 1970s and 80s. Now that the NW economy has become much more diverse than just logging and maritime industries, we too are in hot demand. Our land prices are rising as are the regulatory costs to build.

Washington State isn't even in the top five destinations for Californians moving out any more and hasn't been for years. One reason could be the fact that Washington State is the 4th most expensive housing market in the US and California is the 2nd. Washington is no longer a "bargain." In fact according to statistics from the National Association of Realtors®, King County Washington is more expensive than 52 of California's 58 counties. Yes only San Francisco, Santa Clara, San Mateo, Marin, and Santa Cruz counties are more expensive than King County, WA. Three of those five counties lost value over the last 12 months! King County as with most of Washington State is still seeing increases. Most residents of the Golden State can't afford to move here anymore. Even our local Clark County is about the same as Sacramento, County, CA.

Top Ten Counties on West Coast by Median Home Price Q2 estimate :

1. Santa Clara County, CA population 1,927,000 (San Jose, Silicon Valley) $1,150,000 +4.1%
2. San Mateo County, CA population 767,000 (Silicon Valley) $1,100,000 -6.5%*
3. San Francisco City and County, CA population 875,000 $1,000,000 -6.9%*
4. Marin County, CA population 260,000 (SF Bay Area) $965,000 -7.9%*
5. Santa Cruz County, CA population 274,000 (Monterey Bay) $875,000 +4%
6. King County, WA population 2,302,000 (Seattle) $800,000 +6.4%
7. Orange County, CA population 3,168,000 (Anaheim) $795,000 +5.7%
8. Alameda County, CA population 1,657,000 (Oakland) $775,000 -4.2%*
9. Napa County, CA population 140,000 (Napa Valley) $725,000 +4.8%
10. Los Angeles County, CA population 10,081,000 (Los Angeles) $705,000 +6.6%

* most of the year over year declines shown in the data have been recovered in a recent uptick in median home values.

The majority of California Counties are priced less than Clark County, WA (2020 data) :

• Clark County, WA (Vancouver) $402,463

1. Alpine County (High Sierra) $375,200
2. Humboldt County (Eureka, North Coast) $366,400
3. Stanislaus County (Modesto) $363,600
4. Butte County (Sacramento Valley) $351,100
5. Calaveras County (Sierra Foothills) $336,300
6. Sutter County (Sacramento Valley) $333,200
7. Amador County (Sierra Foothills) $330,200
8. Mono County (Eastern Sierra, Mono Lake) $329,000
9. Madera County (Central Valley) $318,400
10. Yuba County (Sacramento Valley) $307,900
11. Fresno County (Fresno, Central Valley) $306,400
12. Tuolumne County (Yosemite) $304,500
13. Trinity County (Siskiyou Mountains) $302,900
14. Merced County (Central Valley) $300,700
15. Shasta County (Redding, Shasta Lake) $297,700
16. Mariposa County (Sierra Foothills) $290,200
17. Inyo County (Eastern Desert, Death Valley) $283,300
18. Colusa County (Sacramento Valley) $279,200
19. Lake County (Clear Lake, Wine Country) $268,700
20. Kings County (Central Valley) $265,200
21. Tulare County (Central Valley) $260,300
22. Tehama County (Sacramento Valley) $256,300
23. Plumas County (Northern Sierra Foothills) $255,100
24. Kern County (Bakersfield, Central Valley) $253,000
25. Glenn County (Sacramento Valley) $245,500
26. Imperial County (Desert South, Calexico) $244,300
27. Sierra County (Sierra Foothills, High Sierra) $243,600
28. Del Norte County (Crescent City, Redwood NP) $230,300
29. Lassen County (Mt. Lassen NP) $213,700
30. Siskiyou County (Mt Shasta, Siskiyou Mountains) $209,400
31. Modoc County (Northeastern Corner) $148,000

The rising cost of housing is no longer about one "rich" group driving up values, but really our own state and local governments pushing of heavy and ever increasing regulatory requirements that drive up the cost to develop land and this is an AWESOME place to be and everyone wants to live here. This is what really drives the values up.  

So Californians may be a pain in the rear quarters, and don't get our more relaxed Northwest vibe, but they are not really the cause of our bloated real estate prices. That won't stop us from blaming them though... they messed up the Golden State pretty bad, so bad they are fleeing by the tens of thousands every year. We just don't want them screwing up our great state. The real boogeyman if we are honest, is King County and Seattle. They are buying up more Clark County homes than Californians at this point.

Huge Surge in Listings, Boosts Inventory Levels

It seems the pandemic has subsided enough to bring out all those missing listings. The local MLS saw a massive surge in new listings over the last two weeks. This is good news for buyers as the tight inventory led nearly every transaction to a bitter bidding war with one lucky winner and half a dozen disappointed losers. Many buyers have become disenfranchised from the process after numerous failed attempts to land an accepted contract.

This buyers should come back as things have definitely cooled off a tad. The market still favors the seller, but buyers may find a little more options available and fewer offers on houses that are not top drawer. This plays right into the article I wrote last week about watering the lawn. Sellers need to keep the house and grounds looking sharp, because buyers have more to look at now that they have at anytime in the last half year or so.

I won't have to total stats until the MLS releases July's figures next month, but I am certain it will show a major surge in listings as preliminary data suggests. We needed this and it should tip the scales back a tad towards neutral offering buyers a little more opportunity to own their own home.

I listed a lovely three bed, two bath home last week for $435k and was shocked when the first two days had no showings. That's when I realized that a dozen new listings had come up at the same time within a mile of the property! Well by Monday showings picked up and the home was in contract by Wednesday. But this house had an advantage. It was dated but immaculate inside and out. The owner had that old girl shined up like new. Buyers in this day an age tend to favor move-in ready homes that do not require a lot of work. Our society today has become busy, houses have gotten so expensive that buyers often have to work long hours to afford them. So keep in mind that often the best looking house wins the day.