If I would give you 100k more... (Billings, Kalispell: equity, real estate)

[JustAGoodPerson]

Originally Posted by jcbmontana

I would think that you would have a better understanding of this, being a real-estate agent and all. I might be wrong, but it appears that you feel entitled to owning a great home in a great area. There are plenty of places in the state, and country, where homes are very cheap. My point about this area is that, yes things cost more, but you get alot in return. And when you compare it to other areas they are not that expensive. If you want to see expensive then look at Aspen, Vail, or Tahoe.

EVERYONE should be able to own a decent home. those who work hard that is. not those who mooch off the system.

but we have a check list to go down. i want a wood buring stove so i dont have to turn on the heater, i want to be near a body of water in case something happens and we dont have water to our home. a well would be nice so we dont have 100 a month water bills, i want to be near enough to water like in walking distance if need be. not on the water front. i want to be near a big enough city to get grocerys and a church and schools but far enough to not hear it. i have four kids, two dogs, a cat and a husband (hehe) and yet i am willing to be in a 2 bedroom if that means not living tight. but when you look at what you get here to there, you get alot more there for what we would be paying here to simply have a house.

and... to be a real estate agent doesnt mean that what i am seeing is right. when i see first time home buyers be turned down cause they dont make enough... just words to you, but they are people i care about. it really bothers me. they have no debt, they live very inexpensively they dont drive brand new cars... yet they just dont make enough to buy a house in Cali. that made my job suck. i wanted to be a realtor to help people buy houses. after this boom it has just become a job.

[jcbmontana]

[quote=JustAGoodPerson;1107732]but when you look at what you get here to there, you get alot more there for what we would be paying here to simply have a house.
[quote]


That's all I'm saying.

[8 SNAKE]

Originally Posted by JustAGoodPerson

if there were someone wise watching out for this countries well being - and stopped the priced from going beyond the ability for a couple to purchase then we would be fine.

Stop for a minute and really THINK about what you're saying! You're proposing that we change America from a free-market economy into something entirely different.

What you are ranting about is the simple economic principle of supply vs. demand. The very system that this country's economy was founded and has thrived upon.

[jimj]

Justagood,
I too would love to move back to parts of CA to be near my family but even I can't afford to do that and I sold one there. Well, maybe I could afford it but I would be a slave to my house and I refuse to do that. CA is a different animal than most states in that there is no more land to build on in most of the places that people want to live and work so it is truely is supply and demand. There is no way that the government can make it so everyone could have a house and I for one don't want them to. It's not that I don't think that good hard workers deserve a house it's that the government cannot step in and cap the prices and I'm sure you wouldn't want to be paying for someone else's expenses anymore than you already do via taxes.

Since purchasing property began those many years ago there have been good hard workers that couldn't afford to live where they wanted, that's how different parts of the nation became settled. Montana is not out of reach for you, it may not be with everything you want but it will be with everything you really need.

[sc95628]

jimj
I think you got a great presective were I'm coming from. That is why my family wants to be there. We are simple people and have very simple needs. We want a better quality of life that is out of reach here in cali.

[jimj]

I have friends that both work, they have a child and don't make fantastic money but they seem happy.
They hunt for meat every year and fill 2 freezers and fish to fill another. They live in about a 1300 sqft house which is fine for what they need. What you will find here is people will live in a small house,have used to well used cars but have a bunch of toys for the outdoors like atv's,snowmobiles and motorcycles and lots of rifles and bows for hunting.
The only thing I can suggest for you is that you don't move so far away from a decent city for a couple of reasons. One is culture shock, I know exactly the area you live in and here is nothing like that. Things are way more remote and slower here and the amenities you are used to pretty much don't exist here with a couple of exceptions. I wouldn't move near Missoula because in my opinion it isn't much different from where you are. I wouldn't go to a place like Hot Springs because you couldn't get more opposite from where you currently are and I think you would get bored and disalusioned quickly.

I would suggest somewhere in between like Columbia Falls, Marion or places like that. Not real busy, but not the sticks either. If later on after you have looked around or find you want more solitude you could look in the more remote places.
They are still selling new 3 bedroom townhouses here for around $100k that if you got tired of them later you could turn them into a rental and probably do fine. There are still houses here for under $200k that may fit your bill as well. Let me know if you have any questions......

[jenzebel]

Originally Posted by jcbmontana

The same thing happened to the Flathead in the early 90's and people were saying the same thing then that they are now. The sky never fell and wages slowly caught up to cost of living.

Some of us on this forum are here because we feel we need to make sure the whole truth is told about Montana. I for one.

I disagree with the quoted assessment of the Flathead Valley. The average wages aren't even close to catching up with the average housing prices there or in most of Montana.

Look at city-data's own information on Kalispell from 2005 statistics: http://www.city-data.com/city/Kalispell-Montana.html

On city-data, the average household (not per capita) income is listed are $33,100, the average home price $151,000. You can't be a home for $151,000 on a household income of $33K.

Even more recent information from a Big Sky Business Journal article by Evelyn Pyburn dated March 13, 2007:

A recent newspaper report from Kalispell indicates that for some areas of the state this is a legitimate concern. While the median sales price of a home in Billings is $169,900, in Kalispell it's about $200,000. With the rule-of-thumb that no more than 30 percent of a family's gross income should be spent on housing, that means a family would need an annual income of $52,520. In Flathead County 79 percent of the families earn less than $50,000.

Whole text of article at: Will Montana Housing Market Continue to Buck National Trend? :: Big Sky Business Journal :: The Spirit of Commerce is the great bond of union among citizens


Despite what some on this forum suggest, there is still a major gap throughout Montana between average household income and wages. Home values are forced higher by people from outside Montana coming in and buying a second home at what locals would consider exorbitant prices. Many of these homes are new and expensive. Montanans, for the most part, aren't selling their homes and making $100k or more as someone in this forum suggested. They can't because they know they wouldn't be able to buy another one.

[jimj]

Originally Posted by jenzebel

Some of us on this forum are here because we feel we need to make sure the whole truth is told about Montana. I for one.

I disagree with the quoted assessment of the Flathead Valley. The average wages aren't even close to catching up with the average housing prices there or in most of Montana.

Look at city-data's own information on Kalispell from 2005 statistics: http://www.city-data.com/city/Kalispell-Montana.html

On city-data, the average household (not per capita) income is listed are $33,100, the average home price $151,000. You can't be a home for $151,000 on a household income of $33K.

Even more recent information from a Big Sky Business Journal article by Evelyn Pyburn dated March 13, 2007:

A recent newspaper report from Kalispell indicates that for some areas of the state this is a legitimate concern. While the median sales price of a home in Billings is $169,900, in Kalispell it's about $200,000. With the rule-of-thumb that no more than 30 percent of a family's gross income should be spent on housing, that means a family would need an annual income of $52,520. In Flathead County 79 percent of the families earn less than $50,000.

Whole text of article at: Will Montana Housing Market Continue to Buck National Trend? :: Big Sky Business Journal :: The Spirit of Commerce is the great bond of union among citizens


Despite what some on this forum suggest, there is still a major gap throughout Montana between average household income and wages. Home values are forced higher by people from outside Montana coming in and buying a second home at what locals would consider exorbitant prices. Many of these homes are new and expensive. Montanans, for the most part, aren't selling their homes and making $100k or more as someone in this forum suggested. They can't because they know they wouldn't be able to buy another one.

The only gap that exists in MT is the one between wages and cost of living and what the rest of the nation makes. This gap exists state wide hence our rating at about 46th in the nation. Housing is just one component of the cost of living here and it is good montanan's for the most part that own the business's that pay so low. I think it is disingenuous to keep bashing just Flathead county like it is the only expensive or low paying area.

As an example: In our neighborhood there are 2 young men (mid 20's) who bought lots and are building their own houses. One is truely building it with help from his dad.
I know the companies they work for and compared to many other places they don't pay great yet here are these two building houses. These local kids decided that they would build houses small enough to be affordable and then sell them in a couple of years to move up. How do I know this? They told me.....
How could they do this? They became educated enough so they didn't have to work for minimum wage and evidently saved their money and here they are.
I will agree that wages here are not what they should be but thankfully they are going up slowly. It isn't just housing that's expensive though, how about the local stores that mark up items 200% over msrp? How about car dealers who won't sell a car for less than sticker? How about contractors that charge $80 and hour and then pay their people $10. The biggest inequity here is what the business owners charge and make vs what they pay the employee.
It is telling when Lowes comes here and starts paying $12 and hour and their competition then has to step up to keep employees which they do without raising prices, prior to that where do YOU think the difference was going?

Costco raised wages,Depot raised wages as did Lowes and the restaraunts are in a hiring war. Now only if we could get Wal-mart to stop treating people like slaves.....

[grannymontanny]

and then there are those companys that do pay fairly decent,and they cant get anyone to fill the positions,example Western Montana In Business Monthly

[jimj]

Originally Posted by grannymontanny

and then there are those companys that do pay fairly decent,and they cant get anyone to fill the positions,example Western Montana In Business Monthly

Thank you for the article, I knew Plum Creek paid the best in C-Falls but didn't know all the other info. I hear they have great benefits as well. The aluminum plant also pays well.