Towns with Low Cost Housing (Cheyenne, Laramie: real estate, HOA, modular homes)

[stuff]

We want to move to Wyoming but are having trouble finding affordable housing. The real estate seems very high and most of the homes are a lot older. We would like to get a home built in 1950 or newer, with a few acres so we can have a few horses. We also need an area that has decent schools. We do not want to live in a big town, population of 3,000 or fewer people would be ideal. It doesn't matter how far we have to drive to a store. We don't want to live in an area that has a grizzly problem as we want our children to be able to play outside and not have to worry about a bear visiting. Can anyone recommend an area that meets our criteria and that has affordable housing? We'd like to stay around $250,000 or under. Thanks

[sunsprit]

Generally speaking, the little towns that may meet your requirements are going to be found on the Eastern Plains ... predominantly agricultural or former railroad small towns which have not been caught up in the extractive industry or tourist booms.

Pine Bluffs, Albin, for the SE corner, and head up along the highway Northward, Torrington, and a whole host of little towns until you get to the NE corner of the state.

In some of these towns, you may find housing for around or under $100K. Your search will be more limited due to wanting housing that's newer than 1950, but there's a number of acreages around with quality modular homes on them for very low cost.

Keep in mind that state water requirements for a well mean that it's most likely you'll find a 40 acre (minimum) parcel unless it's in a subdivision (which isn't as likley in these small towns).

If you find a suitable property/location, be sure to have the well water tested for quality/contamination from all sources ... colliform, fertilizers, pesticides ... whatever is appropriate for the area. These tests are far beyond the standard well tests required for transfer, but can be significant for your health and that of your livestock. Wheatland, for example ... has substantial nitrate contamination in the local water table from the fertilizers used by farmers in the area.

[ruggedindividual]

Originally Posted by sunsprit

Keep in mind that state water requirements for a well mean that it's most likely you'll find a 40 acre (minimum) parcel unless it's in a subdivision (which isn't as likley in these small towns).

I've seen a lot of these 35-40 acre parcels advertised around Buffalo (Saddleback Hills, Horseshoe Hills, Camino Estates, Etc). What's the story on these parcels? Is it hard to find water there? Undesirable location? Limited access...or all of the above?

[sixofone]

Originally Posted by stuff

We want to move to Wyoming but are having trouble finding affordable housing. The real estate seems very high and most of the homes are a lot older. We would like to get a home built in 1950 or newer, with a few acres so we can have a few horses. We also need an area that has decent schools. We do not want to live in a big town, population of 3,000 or fewer people would be ideal. It doesn't matter how far we have to drive to a store. We don't want to live in an area that has a grizzly problem as we want our children to be able to play outside and not have to worry about a bear visiting. Can anyone recommend an area that meets our criteria and that has affordable housing? We'd like to stay around $250,000 or under. Thanks

As others have pointed out, the Southeastern corner of the state is probably the most affordable. Here in Torrington, $250K will put you into a pretty nice home. Wheatland is also nice, as is Pine Bluffs. Burns, Albin. Lingle, Lusk and Ft Laramie are smaller, but also nice. Be advised, however, that we are not part of the "mountain paradise" you see advertised in the various brochures. Our topology is more like what you'd expect to find in Nebraska.

If you're looking for a mountain view, you can check out Sheridan, Cody, Buffalo or Jackson Hole-- they're beautiful but be ready to pay. The energy boom towns like Gillette are experiencing a shortage of housing.


There's also a lot of new development north of Cheyenne that might meet your needs. I realize you don't want the big city, but the newer homes are far enough from town that you'd have a rural feel and some acreage.

[wyolady]

Originally Posted by sunsprit

If you find a suitable property/location, be sure to have the well water tested for quality/contamination from all sources ... colliform, fertilizers, pesticides ... whatever is appropriate for the area. These tests are far beyond the standard well tests required for transfer, but can be significant for your health and that of your livestock. Wheatland, for example ... has substantial nitrate contamination in the local water table from the fertilizers used by farmers in the area.

But don't let water quality deter you. I live in an acreage outside of Torrington and we have nitrates and other chemicals in our water due to fertilizer. We soften our water AND have a reverse osmosis system for drinking water. Both systems new cost less than $1,000 and maintenance (filters and salt) are less than $10/month. We regularly have our water tested and it is better than many cities drinking water and tastes better than most I've tasted.

[sunsprit]

navyvet79 ... nothing wrong with the Buffalo area, it's gorgeous up there and there's a fair amount of water .... but it's unlikely that the OP will be able to find a place within their budget. That's an expensive area of Wyoming.

My comment re water reflects the state engineer's policy that typically requires a minimum of 40 acres for a domestic (25 gpm max) well permit, so that's been the typical minimum size rural parcel available in Wyoming for many years.

wyolady ... yes, you can readily and affordably treat the water for your domestic household consumption. But what about your livestock and garden? Are you treating all the well water for those purposes, too? (which can get expensive when you're using a lot of water there) Your horses don't tolerate the nitrates in the drinking water any better than you do, and if you're grazing them, they may also be getting high doses of contaminants. Same for your garden ... your produce may be exceptionally high in some contaminants which you then eat.

[wyolady]

Originally Posted by sunsprit

wyolady ... yes, you can readily and affordably treat the water for your domestic household consumption. But what about your livestock and garden? Are you treating all the well water for those purposes, too? (which can get expensive when you're using a lot of water there) Your horses don't tolerate the nitrates in the drinking water any better than you do, and if you're grazing them, they may also be getting high doses of contaminants. Same for your garden ... your produce may be exceptionally high in some contaminants which you then eat.

A small acreage with animals for hobby and a garden can be cheapy and easily treated. If you are talking many acres with more of a working ranch, hauling water is probably cheaper than treating large wells. Treating all well water for small hobby acreages isn't expensive for us - what has your experience and costs been like, sunsprit? It might be more expensive in other parts of the state.

[sunsprit]

wyolady ... for the sake of this thread, we should probably remind folks that a domestic water well in Wyoming is for that limited purpose only. It allows in the house use of domestic water needs, and a small amount of land (up to 1 acre) to be watered for lawn and garden, hand (or drip system) irrigation of trees for a shelter belt or decoration, and a few head of domestic livestock.

So, we're not allowed to use that domestic well for larger scale livestock operations or farming ... which is the domain of irrigation/livestock wells or functional surface water rights (very scarce). I recall that the state generally considers 4 cow/calf units, or 4 horses, or livestock equivalents as being near the limit for domestic well use on 40 acres. If somebody's trying to run more livestock than that (a horse barn, for example), then a livestock well permit would probably be the way to go. Typically, if a site is in a subdivision, they'll have HOA regs about livestock limits, commercial operations, etc, which are rarely burden to a family with horses .... the HOA intent is generally to minimize commercial scale nuisance factors (it's a tricky subject when you've got a local culture of 4H projects around for the kids ....).

My point about treating all of the water produced by a domestic well is that it's not too daunting a cost for in-house domestic use when all you require is reverse osmosis and a water softener for your useage. But it takes a much larger system to accomodate the water flows for a garden, for example ... which means significantly more expense for the system and it's operation.

Additionally, the scope of the contaminants around the state varies greatly. While you might be able to get by with reverse osmosis in one location, another well might require filtration, UV sterilization, reverse osmosis, etc ... to be able to properly treat the water. The increase in system means more up front and operating costs and routine maintenance than a simpler system.

With all that, you still haven't addressed the groundwater contamination concerns in your pastures. Prior farming and ranching practice, along with mining water concerns (CBM water, for example), have left a lot of Wyoming with seriously compromised water (and soil) quality. While a lot of the old timers didn't care or know about these health (and farm production) issues, a lot of that ignorance was from the luxury of a smaller population base and lesser amounts of contaminants. Hence their common attitude of "it's not a problem" or "we've never had a problem" ... until their livestock start sufferring the consequences of contaminated water (google CBM water issues in Wyoming today and you'll see what I'm talking about) or their family is mysteriously getting ill with a lot of persistent minor ailments; over a long term, those ailments can turn quite serious or lead to major illness.

Case in point ... we have friends who bought a place in Wheatland last year, and the whole family immediately came down with a lot of minor ailments, colds, etc. Their goat kids all had low birth weights and other issues. The family had the normal water quality tests performed and the well water was fine. However, further testing showed a very high level of nitrates in their water, so they installed water treatment in their house, and their health issues have gone away. The sellers of the propery sold the place because they were having health issues and livestock problems ... but never connected those issues as being a result of the contaminated water ....

My point on this thread is that it's essential that you have a comprehensive water quality test on a well before buying a property so you know upfront what you're buying. Generally, the seller won't know what they're selling.

[wyolady]

[quote=sunsprit;1306063]Additionally, the scope of the contaminants around the state varies greatly. While you might be able to get by with reverse osmosis in one location, another well might require filtration, UV sterilization, reverse osmosis, etc ... to be able to properly treat the water. The increase in system means more up front and operating costs and routine maintenance than a simpler system.
QUOTE]

Your right, sunsprit. Contaminants and conditions do vary around the state - thought that's what my last post indicated. Didn't mean to get your dander up. I welcome your experiences and viewpoints - hope all are welcome even if they differ. . . . .

[imbobbbb]

most of the small ,cheaper acreages seem to be located within a 50 mile radius of riverton.there are also some places around cheyenne and casper.none of these would be anything real fancy but would be good enough for me.if you dont require a fancy house there are actually a fair number of places around the state within the $250k price range.