U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Oregon > Eugene area
 [Register]
Eugene area Eugene - Springfield metro area
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-28-2009, 10:58 AM
 
Location: Eugene, OR
231 posts, read 732,298 times
Reputation: 223

Advertisements

Olduvai2020: Hey, I just thought of another reason why the RMLS statistics may be skewed. All of the foreclosure houses need to be sold twice. Once to the bank in some sort of auction (that's not really an auction) and then again when the bank resells it to the new owner. Both sales are recorded in RMLS as far as I know.

I think the first sale to the bank is usually at an artificially low number also.

So as Eugene foreclosures rise, you get a lot of these double-count data points on the lower price range homes (most of the foreclosures are in the lower to mid price range homes). Plus the first sale to the bank is at an artificially lower price. Even the second sale is slightly lower that market price as foreclosures tend to be sold this way.

Just some speculation. I am too lazy to check these facts, but maybe some real estate person can tell us if this scenario is correct.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-28-2009, 11:26 AM
 
57 posts, read 155,789 times
Reputation: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Lane View Post
There are other alternatives to urban planning besides the smart growth model in Oregon, and I will not elaborate here from a political standpoint. I am comparing and contrasting different areas to evaluate my options. However I would ask you to reconsider calling my presentation "nonsense." Look at South Lake Tahoe, CA, for example, where there are large lot sizes. There is very low density, with large lot sizes and a low volume of traffic, and no need for additional freeways (that you suggest would be required in Eugene). And, there are large tracts of open space. It's a very nice town, and people fall in love with it, as they do with other small towns of low density such as Flagstaff, AZ; Sedona, AZ; Durango, CO: and Santa Fe, NM . . .
Low density works very well for cars, but not so much for people. I prefer dense, mixed use development where most trips can be accomplished without cars. The whole reasons why cities emerged in the first place was to minimize the amount of moving stuff and people around. It takes huge amounts of fossil fuel energy to run sprawling US cities of today, and this model is not sustainable going forward. Eugener is still too car-centered for my liking, but at least they are making genuine efforts to move away from car-centered lifestyle typical of a US city today.

Quote:
Eugene contrasts with less expensive markets with immediate ownership potential, such as Durango-Bayfield, CO (La Plata, County); Salida, CO; Alamosa, CO; Longmont-Lyons, CO; Ft. Collins, CO; etc . . .

The same graph you have above for Eugene is below for Denver, Boulder, and Ft. Collins. As you can see, there is not much of a housing bubble, and the average home price is $210K with Ft. Collins and Boulder starting to recover...
Boulder with its growth management policies is pretty much in a league of its own in Colorado. As far as the high housing prices in Eugene are concerned, I doubt that they have much to do with the smart growth strategies. As indicated in the graph I posted above, up until about 2005-06 the prices in Eugene have been in line with the national median prices. Policies that are normally associated with the concept of smart growth (promoting dense mixed-use development, encouraging alternative transportation modes, urban growth boundary, infill construction, urban redevelopment areas, etc.) have been in place for many years and even decades before that, with no noticeable impact on RE prices. So where is the data to prove the correlation and/or causation between the two?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2009, 11:34 AM
 
57 posts, read 155,789 times
Reputation: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Eugenified View Post
Olduvai2020: Hey, I just thought of another reason why the RMLS statistics may be skewed. All of the foreclosure houses need to be sold twice. Once to the bank in some sort of auction (that's not really an auction) and then again when the bank resells it to the new owner. Both sales are recorded in RMLS as far as I know.

I think the first sale to the bank is usually at an artificially low number also.
I thought about this too. According to the folks over at RMLS that I talked to, the first (auction) sale is not reflected in their stats. The second sale may or may not be reflected in their stats, depending on whether the property is listed via RMLS. BTW, Case-Shiller index also excludes properties that are sold more than once in a six-month period, so the CSI numbers that everybody is celebrating these days are skewed upwards because of that.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2009, 01:10 PM
 
Location: Eugene
31 posts, read 167,109 times
Reputation: 53
Just to add some input to all the well thought out posts here, my wife and I have been renting in Eugene since we moved almost 2 years ago, we have been house hunting for 6 months and finally decided to build in the timberline area for 300k, this is far below any of the current houses up there and anything on the market in that area.

Our rent has been $1400 a month, our house payment will be around $2000. I think for privacy, larger living area, beautiful views and our own yard the price difference is well worth it.

Just the thought of a current renter buying a house in Eugene
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2009, 01:33 PM
 
Location: Eugene, OR
231 posts, read 732,298 times
Reputation: 223
Recently, I have seen a few of those empty lots along upper Timberline (past Bentley and before Summit Sky) start to show as "sold", after a fairly long time when only a couple of them sold and were built on. I think the views from some of those lots will be fantastic. Even without a view, the surrounding hills and chunks of forest make for a nice atmosphere. Sounds like you made a good choice.

On the other hand, you are WAY more ambitious/brave than I am. I would be too paranoid to go through the whole construction process myself. Maybe I would do it if there was some sort of "prefab set meal" way of doing it, but even then, I would probably not be able to sleep at night during the whole process. But that's just me.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2009, 03:31 PM
 
57 posts, read 155,789 times
Reputation: 46
Uiier, congratulations on your new home! It's nice to build your own place in the sense that you get the house built to your exact specifications and you can personally ensure high quality of materials and construction. The downside is that most vacant lots are in the areas that I would not consider walkable or bikeable (Walkscore of 35 or less out of 100). As an avid gardener, I would also be reluctant to live up in the hills where the deer will eat up all of my produce, but it's probably not a factor for most people.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2009, 11:05 PM
 
857 posts, read 1,514,632 times
Reputation: 186
Default Smart Growth Cars And Bicycles; Libertarian Smart Growth Proposal

Quote:
Originally Posted by Olduvai2020 View Post
Low density works very well for cars, but not so much for people. I prefer dense, mixed use development where most trips can be accomplished without cars. The whole reasons why cities emerged in the first place was to minimize the amount of moving stuff and people around. It takes huge amounts of fossil fuel energy to run sprawling US cities of today, and this model is not sustainable going forward. Eugener is still too car-centered for my liking, but at least they are making genuine efforts to move away from car-centered lifestyle typical of a US city today. Boulder with its growth management policies is pretty much in a league of its own in Colorado. As far as the high housing prices in Eugene are concerned, I doubt that they have much to do with the smart growth strategies. As indicated in the graph I posted above, up until about 2005-06 the prices in Eugene have been in line with the national median prices. Policies that are normally associated with the concept of smart growth (promoting dense mixed-use development, encouraging alternative transportation modes, urban growth boundary, infill construction, urban redevelopment areas, etc.) have been in place for many years and even decades before that, with no noticeable impact on RE prices. So where is the data to prove the correlation and/or causation between the two?
Of course I agree w/ you to eliminate car trips and fossil fuel use. I am all for bicycle lanes and walkability. However, it is inevitable that people still end up driving their cars within dense infilled urban centers 1-2 miles to get to the grocery store. As others have pointed out, until gas is $10 a gallon, except for bicyclists, people won't get on their bikes to go to the grocery store. And, they are not going to do so when the streets are cluttered with traffic and air pollution. I am in full support of Eugene, Flagstaff, Sedona-VOC, South Lake Tahoe, Boulder, Mammoth Lakes (CA), et. al. both making their towns more bike friendly. You ask about the correlation between smart growth and foreclosures. Search for papers by Dr. Wendell Cox. And, here's a Libertarian smart growth proposal that demonstrates that you and I agree more than we disagree: A Libertarian Smart Growth Agenda | Planetizen
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2009, 08:01 AM
 
Location: Eugene
31 posts, read 167,109 times
Reputation: 53
I don't want to hijack this thread, I just wanted to give some insight without numbers, more of personal experience. I would like to discuss this area and process more though, so PM's sent
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2009, 11:55 AM
 
57 posts, read 155,789 times
Reputation: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Lane View Post
Of course I agree w/ you to eliminate car trips and fossil fuel use. I am all for bicycle lanes and walkability. However, it is inevitable that people still end up driving their cars within dense infilled urban centers 1-2 miles to get to the grocery store.
Yes, if the closest grocery store is 2 miles away, most people will drive to get there. The whole point of mixed use development is to have sufficient amount of neighborhood retail and service establishments that you don't have to go two miles to get there. Ideally, you want to have most destinations within half-mile radius, so that most trips are done of foot or bicycle. Mass transit also works much better and has better ridership when you have a higher density and more mixed-use areas.

Quote:
As others have pointed out, until gas is $10 a gallon, except for bicyclists, people won't get on their bikes to go to the grocery store. And, they are not going to do so when the streets are cluttered with traffic and air pollution.
People often assume that traffic congestion is a problem; I beg to disagree. Traffic congestion is the market's way of telling us that a particular service (in this case, road capacity) is grossly underpriced through government subsidies for road construction, maintenance and parking. Remove most of those subsidies (e.g. through "road diet") along with the free parking, and a lot of trips will shift from cars to other transportation modes even with gasoline at $2.50/gallon. "Free" parking that is often mandated by obsolete city codes comes with a huge cost to the community.

BTW, I am well familiar with the arguments of Dr. Cox who is mentioned in your post. The kind of planning approach he is advocating would actually be impossible without massive government subsidies for car-based transportation systems, which unfortunately has been our federal, state and local policy for the past 60 years.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Oregon > Eugene area
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top