Grants Pass, Medford or Ashland???

[Larry Caldwell]

Originally Posted by AAAplus

some people like suburban sprawl, some people don't. eugene, bend, ashland, medford, portland - they're all sprawling as far as i'm concerned.

what i am more concerned about is taxes and affordable housing, and oregon is difficult for this, especially southern oregon.

Another thing that makes Oregon housing so expensive is building codes. You might be happier in a state with no statewide building code, like South Dakota. Louisiana just passed a statwide building code for the first time after Katrina, but I'm sure you could find plenty of tarpaper shacks with tin roofs there, somewhere away from the coast where they didn't blow away.

[AAAplus]

Originally Posted by kapetrich

Restricting suburban sprawl makes housing more of a finite resource. Therefor, often times, housing prices in areas with strict UGBs will be higher.

That is why you like places in Nevada and TX. They do not have strong UGBs therefor housing, for lack of a better word, is limitless aka extremely cheap, comparably.

There are other factors, but this is the scope we are discussing.

Again, if you like suburban sprawl Oregon is probably not the state for you.

Really? Palm Springs and Boulder embrace diversity? That won't be close to the first thing I think of when describing those monocultures.

Am I missing your joke, maybe?



You do not seem to understand how this works. Read up on UGB: Here's the broadest overview I could find: Urban growth boundary - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The point is that Vegas and Reno DO NOT control land and development making housing cheaper. Both places are absolutely abhorrent to me, but like you said - and I totally agree - it all comes down to personal taste.

Governments can not DIRECTLY control housing prices in the USA - what are you one of those 'socialists'

1. the issue raised in the "thread" is affordable housing. you suggest that oregon is expensive in areas that have strict boundaries. that is not a liberal policy, instead it favors the existing homeowner who sees their home prices go up, and eventually crash. that's all i am saying. ashland is obviously a renters' market, not a buyers market - compared to reno or vegas that are both of these.

2. census data - boulder, las vegas, reno, palm springs, and los angeles receive folks from all over the US. oregon cities mostly the west coast, except portland, so oregon cities are not that diverse.

ashland is more of a renters' market, than a buyer's market, that's all i'm saying, due to the land use issues. if that is the way that they want to do things, then those who move in have less opportunities for buying housing than they would in vegas, phoenix, austin, reno, etc.

Originally Posted by Larry Caldwell

Another thing that makes Oregon housing so expensive is building codes. You might be happier in a state with no statewide building code, like South Dakota. Louisiana just passed a statwide building code for the first time after Katrina, but I'm sure you could find plenty of tarpaper shacks with tin roofs there, somewhere away from the coast where they didn't blow away.

I'm all for building codes; the issue is affordable housing ...... clearly the oregon system is broken since housing is so expensive in many areas.

[kapetrich]

Is it just me or.....

Anyway, I wish you much luck in your future home ownership, AAAplus.

Again, we agree. Oregon is not the best place for your needs.