quote:

Originally posted by CHAS:
pique, Sorry you did not get the house.

My place has appreciated more than I imagined it would. So have the places I have considered moving to. Denver prices have gone nuts. WTF?

This is at the root of why it is such a extreme sellers market. Lack of supply, which is caused, in part, by lack of supply. Our current home isn't on the market because we have no place to move to.

This article is the most accurate depiction I've seen of what is going on here:

https://missoulacurrent.com/bu...1/02/housing-demand/

I think the housing market has seen a number of shocks and it's going to be a good while before anything near equilibrium is reached. I have a daughter who is looking to buy a house in the Pittsburgh area. She is encountering similar although not quite as extreme conditions as described.

One of the big concerns in recent years in the city has been gentrification, where new buyers find an older city neighborhood attractive enough to bid up housing prices, sometimes driving long-term residents of the neighborhoods out as properties are either sold or former rental properties move into the market for sale.

I've not seen a good analysis of all the economic factors at play - I can easily think that the remote work factor has some influence, but I don't see it as a prime driver of the trends.

I tend to think that the unavailability of lower-priced housing, be it purchase or rental, drives the escalation of prices in most markets. It's classic supply/demand economics. The question that arises out of that premise is whether people can afford some sort of housing at the income levels that they must exist at.

If what we see is a temporary adjustment to changing conditions, then it will eventually work it's way out. If a significant portion of the population of the USA cannot find housing affordable to their income level, then we face a much bigger problem and the solutions are not obvious.

I'm not forecasting a "1930s Dust Bowl" migration, but if people cannot find a home to live in, be it by rental or purchase, we face an existential crisis for some households that we have not really confronted since the 1930s.

Big Al

The primary solution to this problem is to build more houses, but a lot of people don’t like that idea either.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Miller:
The primary solution to this problem is to build more houses, but a lot of people don’t like that idea either.

Actually Missoula has worked hard to create affordable housing. Zoning rules were changed some years ago to permit more ADUs and subdivision of lots in the city. They are trying to preserve open space and agricultural land while increasing housing density. There are many new condos, and there has been a ton of new building. But not enough to satisfy this new demand.

There's even a new, high density neighborhood under construction now and because of the unprecedented market craziness, the developers have decided the new homes are only going to be sold to local residents and they will not allow bidding wars. On April 1 they'll have a lottery drawing for the houses. If your name is pulled out of the hat, you can buy a house for its list price--which is fixed--no competitive bidding.

The company has been building houses in the community for as long as I've been here. They came up with this idea on their own, as a way to give back. I think this is very cool.

They tried that sort of “no bid” low cost housing stuff here and it was a miserable failure. The houses went to well connected family and friends of the builder/politicians who re sold in a year for a 50 profit.

A better return will be had if you build high end, fairly dense luxury condos and charge big prices for them. It takes the pressure off of single family home prices, builders make more money, snd you don’t concentrate poverty in to one area.

That creates no place for people of modest means to live, though. It effectively establishes more wealthy (but denser) enclaves. That’s no solution at all.

Better to means test the lottery winners.

Sorry, piqué.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Miller:
They tried that sort of “no bid” low cost housing stuff here and it was a miserable failure. The houses went to well connected family and friends of the builder/politicians who re sold in a year for a 50 profit.

A better return will be had if you build high end, fairly dense luxury condos and charge big prices for them. It takes the pressure off of single family home prices, builders make more money, snd you don’t concentrate poverty in to one area.

They've done the condos too. They are everywhere. I seriously doubt these fixed price homes will go to the wealthy and connected. They are holding a drawing. They could make a lot more money if they didn't do that and had bidding wars instead. To put your name in the hat you have to be a local resident. Very few local residents that have been here any length of time are wealthy.

A relevant story from May of last year:

https://www.usnews.com/news/be...in-moving-to-montana

Big Al

Sorry you couldn't get your place, Pique. I am just now dipping into this thread.

I really wonder about the mindset of building all this housing. Yes, I understand it at some level. But let's say you move to an area because of the low density, and suddenly zoning is changed and politics, etc., and now they want to build high density.

That is kind of where we are in Staten Island; we liked it because we didn't like typical NYC living in apartments on top of one another, so SI had the single-family home model. Now they want to put up these big boxes on the waterfront obstructing our views. And who knows if people will really want to live in them.

Sorry if I am getting off-topic...it's just on my mind.

quote:

Originally posted by big al:
A relevant story from May of last year:

https://www.usnews.com/news/be...in-moving-to-montana

Big Al

What a dummy. I would live in Anacortes over Billings any day.

quote:

Originally posted by RealPlayer:
Sorry you couldn't get your place, Pique. I am just now dipping into this thread.

I really wonder about the mindset of building all this housing. Yes, I understand it at some level. But let's say you move to an area because of the low density, and suddenly zoning is changed and politics, etc., and now they want to build high density.

That is kind of where we are in Staten Island; we liked it because we didn't like typical NYC living in apartments on top of one another, so SI had the single-family home model. Now they want to put up these big boxes on the waterfront obstructing our views. And who knows if people will really want to live in them.

Sorry if I am getting off-topic...it's just on my mind.

People need places to live, and our population has doubled in our lifetimes ( as best I recall, correct me if I'm wrong). Montana landowners used to own tens of thousands of acres per owner. Then they started dividing it up. 20 year ago it was 20-acre subdivisions, then ten. Now 5 acres is a typical "ranchette".

quote:

Originally posted by piqué:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Miller:
They tried that sort of “no bid” low cost housing stuff here and it was a miserable failure. The houses went to well connected family and friends of the builder/politicians who re sold in a year for a 50 profit.

A better return will be had if you build high end, fairly dense luxury condos and charge big prices for them. It takes the pressure off of single family home prices, builders make more money, snd you don’t concentrate poverty in to one area.

They've done the condos too. They are everywhere. I seriously doubt these fixed price homes will go to the wealthy and connected. They are holding a drawing. They could make a lot more money if they didn't do that and had bidding wars instead. To put your name in the hat you have to be a local resident. Very few local residents that have been here any length of time are wealthy.

How long do you have to live in Montana to be considered a local resident, for these purposes?

This came in the mail yesterday:



What struck me is the information in red at the top of each picture. Nearly everything shown went for over asking, some WAY over asking. Why?

Is Alex underpricing everything so his listings sell quickly? Are people listing based on what Zillow says their house is worth? (Zillow is way behind). Is the market so hot that value went up that much between listing and sale?

I've seen hot real estate markets before, but nothing like this.