Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
p.s. Can't say about Boise or the Treasure Valley, but the Rathdrum Prairie is a long way from "full". A lot of farmland on the prairie still.
Many would hope that the remaining farmland stays the way it is rather than being blanketed with tract homes.
As Bonner county has embarked on an update of their comprehensive plan the residents have expressed a very clear and as far as I can tell nearly universal desire to maintain the rural character of the area. Many up here in Bonner point to Kootenai county as the nearest example of what they don't want to happen up here.
If we're going to maintain the open spaces that are fundamental to the rural character of the area, and allow for future population growth, then the only answer is to build up. The same people who are most vocal about the desire to keep the area rural are equally vocal that they don't want multi-story, multi-unit development to happen in town, since that would change the character of Sandpoint itself.
There is also a large overlap between groups that want to maintain the area as is, and those that complain about the price of housing, which has increased at a much faster rate than local wages and salaries. But that's the rub: If you constrain the supply of housing by keeping minimum lot sizes large and limiting multi-unit housing, and demand continues, then prices will inevitably increase. That may eventually put a damper on demand, but only after the area has been transformed into one where it's difficult to get by unless you are quite well off. There are any number of popular destinations in the American west that have followed that path.
It seems there is no easy answer to these problems. We can facilitate population growth at the expense of changing the character of the area in ways that many find undesirable, or we constrain growth and head down a path of increasing the cost of housing. Finding a middle road is difficult, and often leads to compromised outcomes that nobody is happy with.
Many would hope that the remaining farmland stays the way it is rather than being blanketed with tract homes.
As Bonner county has embarked on an update of their comprehensive plan the residents have expressed a very clear and as far as I can tell nearly universal desire to maintain the rural character of the area. Many up here in Bonner point to Kootenai county as the nearest example of what they don't want to happen up here.
If we're going to maintain the open spaces that are fundamental to the rural character of the area, and allow for future population growth, then the only answer is to build up. The same people who are most vocal about the desire to keep the area rural are equally vocal that they don't want multi-story, multi-unit development to happen in town, since that would change the character of Sandpoint itself.
There is also a large overlap between groups that want to maintain the area as is, and those that complain about the price of housing, which has increased at a much faster rate than local wages and salaries. But that's the rub: If you constrain the supply of housing by keeping minimum lot sizes large and limiting multi-unit housing, and demand continues, then prices will inevitably increase. That may eventually put a damper on demand, but only after the area has been transformed into one where it's difficult to get by unless you are quite well off. There are any number of popular destinations in the American west that have followed that path.
It seems there is no easy answer to these problems. We can facilitate population growth at the expense of changing the character of the area in ways that many find undesirable, or we constrain growth and head down a path of increasing the cost of housing. Finding a middle road is difficult, and often leads to compromised outcomes that nobody is happy with.
Dave
I've been guilty of dissing on the cda area for all the recent growth. Many newer transplants are already experiencing this. Try to imagine CDA as nothing north of I-90 except Super 1, and 55 MPH from Appleway to Sandpoint with no stop lights. Northwest blvd empty. The town existed mainly S. of I-90, east of N.W. blvd, and the lake.
The prairie was really only Jacklin Seed and burning the fields was how it is. Only a handful of farmhouses. New homes started going in and the fight began to stop Jacklin from burning (by all those new transplants who didn't want to change anything when they arrived).
I mentioned how old locals refer to Kootenai county as little California. Sorry about that. I'll clue you in on where big fish can be caught as my amends.
10 years I think it will be difficult to tell where Spokane ends and CDA begins and CDA and Sandpoint will continue to grow closer as well, if not connected.
Also, I've been reading where a lot of you are disappointed about the low snow fall, so here is a pic. somewhere between 1988-1992. On 3rd St. heading towards the lake. See the resort. The snow berm is in the middle, with equal size berms on each side by the sidewalks. The right hand lane is on the other side of the berm. People were extending car antennas & putting flags on top to see approaching vehicles at intersections. Dozers were pushing snow down 3rd, down the boat launch and into the lake 'cause there was no where else to put it.
I hope folks don't take my comments as dissing the CdA area, because that's not at all what I intended. Rather, it's simply a statement of fact that Bonner county is presently quite a bit more rural than the CdA area, and just about all the people I've heard speak about the issue want Bonner county to stay that way.
As pointed out by Movedintime there is been significant growth in CdA and Kootenai county overall. I think it's natural for Bonner county residents to look to Kootenai county as an example, good or bad depending on their outlook, of what might happen up here in the future.
I realize many will appreciate the amenities that come along with living in a larger community, and for them CdA may represent a perfect balance between those things and the outdoor recreational opportunities that are nearby. To each their own.
As to the snow, we've been quite happy with our first two winters here in NID. With 92" in 16/17, and 102" in 17/18 it's difficult to imagine someone wanting more. Schweitzer set a record this past winter with something like 18 feet of snow. I was chatting with one of my neighbors last weekend, and the past two winters have caused he and his wife to decide to spend Dec and Jan in AZ going forward. They plan to come back up here in Feb to ski the last couple months of winter.
Can't say about Boise or the Treasure Valley, but the Rathdrum Prairie is a long way from "full". A lot of farmland on the prairie still.
I think “fullness” applies more to cities and its immediate area. Just like IDaho, California has plenty of “empty” / undeveloped areas, but we’re more talking areas where jobs are plentiful, restaurants, cultural venues, etc. For Idaho, these spots are CDA and especially Boise, and to a lesser degree Idaho Falls.
Congestion closely reflects the same order. Idaho Falls is not “full” but it is the next best thing in Idaho right now for value vs jobs + amenities.
So, IF might be growing faster in the 5-10 years, and RE prices might follow suit. The main reason I think IF has not been as appealing as CDA is that Idaho Falls is a lot harder to get to for a working person to check out on a weekend for relocation.
You can fly reasonably to Spokane on a Friday afternoon and have dinner in CDA. Spend the whole day Saturday, half a day on Sunday and fly back from Spokane for $ 300.
IF is a totally different story. The closest reasonable cost airport is SLC. If you get to SLC on Friday afternoon / evening, you pick up a rental car, stop in SLC for dinner - it’s already too late to drive those 5+ hours to IF. And that’s on a good day.
So, for a long distance relocatee, CDA is a lot easier to get to and check out. Even Sandpoint or even Bonner Ferry, although these are relatively small.
What are your guys' thoughts on what the North Idaho/CDA area will be like in the next 5 or 10 years? With so many people moving here, especially from out of state, how will this impact the area, in the aspects of:
* Politics. More conservative or less conservative?
* Lifestyle. Will traffic become unbearable?
* Housing prices. Can it keep going up forever?
* Culture
etc?
Not looking for anything in particular, other than to generate some discussion.
It will look like western Montana. A lovely mix of ultra liberal and ultra conservative people and the working class can't afford to live there.
Putting my 2 cents in as a conservative, working class California transplant.
I am well acquainted with quite a few real estate agents due to the transaction services I perform. I also worked in a property management office for three months in the CDA/Post Falls area.
What the problem is right now is greed, pure and simple. Californians are selling crappy (literally) houses for extortionate prices. A standard three bed room, two bath home built in the 1960's will easily sell for between $500,000 to $700,000 in certain areas of California. THESE transplants are helping to cause the insane rise in the costs of buying AND renting. At least 30% of sales in North Idaho are cash, with nearly 100% of these buyers being from California. However, the problem doesn't stop there. Quite a few of them are buying up multiple houses at inflated prices. Some are buying land and building on it, buying houses on land and knocking down the existing house to build new, or are buying a house that doesn't suit their eclectic tastes. So, instead of staying in California until their homes are ready they come up and rent. Most tenants are expected to sign a lease for one year, but when these Californians offer to rent a house for only six months, with the agreement that they will pay an inflated price, pay the full six months up front, or agree to pay for an extra two months on top of the six months, who do you think the owners and property managers are going to choose as tenants? This is a FACT! I personally dealt with these situations here in property management.
On top of all this, tenants who have been promised that within a few years they will be able to buy the house they have been faithfully renting are suddenly finding themselves turned out and told the house going on the market NOW. So we now have local renters who can't afford to buy, and also can't afford the grossly inflated rent even if they could find a home available.
True story, overheard in Lowes the other day... one man telling another that normally his property, which contains two run down manufactured houses, would sell for maybe $200,000. But he is now advertising it for sale in California because he can double the price to $400,000.
We have Californians KNOCKING ON DOORS, waving cash and asking if they can buy someone's home. Maybe not too stressful for an owner who lives in his home, but for renters it has become stressful. I have had FOUR people knock on my door!
The only way this is going to level out is if California gets its act together and people stop escaping.
Putting my 2 cents in as a conservative, working class California transplant.
I am well acquainted with quite a few real estate agents due to the transaction services I perform. I also worked in a property management office for three months in the CDA/Post Falls area.
What the problem is right now is greed, pure and simple. Californians are selling crappy (literally) houses for extortionate prices. A standard three bed room, two bath home built in the 1960's will easily sell for between $500,000 to $700,000 in certain areas of California. THESE transplants are helping to cause the insane rise in the costs of buying AND renting. At least 30% of sales in North Idaho are cash, with nearly 100% of these buyers being from California. However, the problem doesn't stop there. Quite a few of them are buying up multiple houses at inflated prices. Some are buying land and building on it, buying houses on land and knocking down the existing house to build new, or are buying a house that doesn't suit their eclectic tastes. So, instead of staying in California until their homes are ready they come up and rent. Most tenants are expected to sign a lease for one year, but when these Californians offer to rent a house for only six months, with the agreement that they will pay an inflated price, pay the full six months up front, or agree to pay for an extra two months on top of the six months, who do you think the owners and property managers are going to choose as tenants? This is a FACT! I personally dealt with these situations here in property management.
On top of all this, tenants who have been promised that within a few years they will be able to buy the house they have been faithfully renting are suddenly finding themselves turned out and told the house going on the market NOW. So we now have local renters who can't afford to buy, and also can't afford the grossly inflated rent even if they could find a home available.
True story, overheard in Lowes the other day... one man telling another that normally his property, which contains two run down manufactured houses, would sell for maybe $200,000. But he is now advertising it for sale in California because he can double the price to $400,000.
We have Californians KNOCKING ON DOORS, waving cash and asking if they can buy someone's home. Maybe not too stressful for an owner who lives in his home, but for renters it has become stressful. I have had FOUR people knock on my door!
The only way this is going to level out is if California gets its act together and people stop escaping.
Thanks for the on-the-ground report. AFAIK, CA exilees did the same thing to Arizona and Colorado. NYers did the same thing to Florida. It still goes on. It's hard to moralize with people's self-interest, as destructive as it may be to the locals.
30% of sales in NID being cash and all from California expats -- that's a huge number for a small population state like Idaho. This is despite the 1.6% number US Census gives as seniors that relocate upon retirement (which I personally find it hard to believe.)
Baby boomers are retiring, and this big wave is supposed to end by 2030, when the last boomers turn 65 yo. About 75 million of them strong. Not counting immigrant seniors.
So, barring any legislative action on Idaho's part, or another great recession, I see no reason for Idaho trends not to continue for a little while.
Weather-wise Idaho is also not a slam dunk for seniors. 5-6 months (Oct-March/Apr) are not very conducive to light outdoors activities. During some summers, smoke or fires in the months of Aug and September spoil the nice summers.
Add congestion and increased real estate prices -- this will increasingly make Idaho less appealing, although it is still a value for someone who can sell his 1957 ranch for $ 700k in California.
And now they want to set up a community of "tiny homes," for the homeless junkies, alcoholics and criminals to live in, free of charge.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why anybody would want to go there is a mystery to me.
