PSA: If you're thinking of moving to Bellingham, don't! (Seattle: rent, car insurance)

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by xPlorer48

I live south of town and there are certainly no old farmsteads that are cheap. You may be thinking about Skagit County near Bow, Alger, Edison. In my neighborhood, 5 acre parcels go for $400,000. The south side of Bellingham is the more desirable area to live in because of less congestion. Housing is more expensive here, usually. Also, they are zoned rural residential or agriculture.

I'm thinking of the part of town called "south Bellingham", near Lake Padden. 5 acres for $400K is a very good deal, especially if it has a house on it. Even if it doesn't, it's only $80K/acre in a great location. You could divide it in half, or in thirds, and have a 1+ acre lot, and sell the rest for a tidy sum. People in B'ham are paying $400K for just a standard city lot with a house on it. South B'ham seems to be an undiscovered corner of good deals, but maybe there are only a couple of those left, IDK. Maybe the rest has already been sold and subdivided.

[CrazyDonkey]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

I'm thinking of the part of town called "south Bellingham", near Lake Padden. 5 acres for $400K is a very good deal, especially if it has a house on it. Even if it doesn't, it's only $80K/acre in a great location. You could divide it in half, or in thirds, and have a 1+ acre lot, and sell the rest for a tidy sum. People in B'ham are paying $400K for just a standard city lot with a house on it. South B'ham seems to be an undiscovered corner of good deals, but maybe there are only a couple of those left, IDK. Maybe the rest has already been sold and subdivided.

https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sal...09_rect/11_zm/

Not <$400k or on 5 acres, but not far above that and still on a larger lot (.29 acres). View of Lake Padden and "valid Rental License with 'hot plate' kitchen & fridge in basement". 6/7/7 rankings for ES, MS, and HS.

For better deals on acreage look further south (around Lake Samish). For instance:

https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sal...17_rect/11_zm/

https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sal...67_rect/11_zm/

[rkcarguy]

Ruth4truth, $400K may sound like a "great deal" to a Californian or Seattle-ite", but it's almost twice what the average working family could get a home loan for in Whatcom county.
Maybe I am old fashioned in the way I think, that an area's cost of housing/living should reflect the price range of affordability and actual availability for those that work there?

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by rkcarguy

Ruth4truth, $400K may sound like a "great deal" to a Californian or Seattle-ite", but it's almost twice what the average working family could get a home loan for in Whatcom county.
Maybe I am old fashioned in the way I think, that an area's cost of housing/living should reflect the price range of affordability and actual availability for those that work there?

The point is, that it's $400K for 5 acres, about 10 times the amt. of land that most home buyers even want! If that's the price large parcels (with an old house) on it are going for in that part of town, imagine what smaller parcels would cost. Very affordable, even for Bellinghamers, if you don't mind an old farmhouse without updates, possibly a fixer-upper.

[rkcarguy]

Outside of town, most zoning is rural acreage, and only allowed one house per property. If the area was annexed, the same property would be worth millions IF it was all usable. Typically wetlands render much of any property useless, because the definition of wetlands and streams has been extended to encompass pretty much anywhere water puddles and flows even for a period of only a few months. I.E. you can have a low spot in that fills up with water when it rains heavy and then flows down a path, and this can be considered a "wetland" and a "stream" requiring 100' and 50' buffers respectively.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by rkcarguy

Outside of town, most zoning is rural acreage, and only allowed one house per property. If the area was annexed, the same property would be worth millions IF it was all usable. Typically wetlands render much of any property useless, because the definition of wetlands and streams has been extended to encompass pretty much anywhere water puddles and flows even for a period of only a few months. I.E. you can have a low spot in that fills up with water when it rains heavy and then flows down a path, and this can be considered a "wetland" and a "stream" requiring 100' and 50' buffers respectively.

Interesting. The property I originally saw, that was in South B'ham, about a block or two from Lake Padden, did have a stream bordering it, I think, or maybe passing through a corner of it. I wonder if that's why the parcel seemed like such a good deal.

[rkcarguy]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

Interesting. The property I originally saw, that was in South B'ham, about a block or two from Lake Padden, did have a stream bordering it, I think, or maybe passing through a corner of it. I wonder if that's why the parcel seemed like such a good deal.

Most likely, the buffer zone around that creek/stream could be anywhere from 50'-300'? depending upon if its a seasonal flow or is salmon bearing, or flows into salmon bearing waters, and how far away this happens. Years ago I was looking at a 5 acre parcel that had a creek on it with salmon supposedly in it, and a small wetland about 15' in diameter. By the time the setbacks and buffers were all applied there was only one spot to potentially squeeze a single wide into right by the busy road. I think that this needs to change, especially for residential zoned property. Not such that were able to just gut wetlands by any means, but that we should be allowed to build closer to them provided certain "prescriptives" are followed. For example, slope any landscaped areas around the home away from the wetland/stream, natural roof options, gutters and runoff drain to a cistern away from the wetlands, limitations on landscaping, etc.

As the system stands now, developers can offer compensary land and destroy or develop right up to the edges of wetlands. The fee's for doing all this are no problem for a developer doing a multi-million $ project. Where-as, for the single family home-owner the expense and time to jump through all these hoops can be financially devastating and strip most of the owners rights to do anything with their property minus the "reasonable exception" option which only allows up to 2400sq/ft for all structures and landscaping, plus a driveway to be located through the least impacted area of the property.

[rkcarguy]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

Interesting. The property I originally saw, that was in South B'ham, about a block or two from Lake Padden, did have a stream bordering it, I think, or maybe passing through a corner of it. I wonder if that's why the parcel seemed like such a good deal.

Most likely, the buffer zone around that creek/stream could be anywhere from 50'-300'? depending upon if its a seasonal flow or is salmon bearing, or flows into salmon bearing waters, and how far away this happens. Years ago I was looking at a 5 acre parcel that had a creek on it with salmon supposedly in it, and a small wetland about 15' in diameter. By the time the setbacks and buffers were all applied there was only one spot to potentially squeeze a single wide into right by the busy road. The really rotten part is its now a strip mall. I think that this needs to change, especially for residential zoned property. Not such that were able to just gut wetlands by any means, but that we should be allowed to build closer to them provided certain "prescriptives" are followed. For example, slope any landscaped areas around the home away from the wetland/stream, gutters and runoff drain to a cistern away from the wetlands, limitations on landscaping, etc.

As the system stands now, developers can offer compensary land and destroy or develop right up to the edges of wetlands. The fee's for doing all this are no problem for a developer doing a multi-million $ project. Where-as, for the single family home-owner the expense and time to jump through all these hoops can be financially devastating and strip most of the owners rights to do anything with their property minus the "reasonable exception" option which only allows up to 2400sq/ft for all structures and landscaping, plus a driveway to be located through the least impacted area of the property.

[xPlorer48]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

I'm thinking of the part of town called "south Bellingham", near Lake Padden. 5 acres for $400K is a very good deal, especially if it has a house on it. Even if it doesn't, it's only $80K/acre in a great location. You could divide it in half, or in thirds, and have a 1+ acre lot, and sell the rest for a tidy sum. People in B'ham are paying $400K for just a standard city lot with a house on it. South B'ham seems to be an undiscovered corner of good deals, but maybe there are only a couple of those left, IDK. Maybe the rest has already been sold and subdivided.

Nope, it is zoned R5A which is Rural Residential 1 home per 5 acres- no subdividing. No house but has power and natural gas. Septic system where perk is slow and water from a well both of which need to be in place. I do not know of any cheap land deals in South Bellingham. If there are, I would like to know. You may be thinking of Alger, Bow, or rural North Skagit County.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by xPlorer48

Nope, it is zoned R5A which is Rural Residential 1 home per 5 acres- no subdividing. No house but has power and natural gas. Septic system where perk is slow and water from a well both of which need to be in place. I do not know of any cheap land deals in South Bellingham. If there are, I would like to know. You may be thinking of Alger, Bow, or rural North Skagit County.

Oh, ok, so even if it's within city limits, it can't be subdivided? Yes, it was in So. B'ham. That was IDK, a couple of months ago, maybe.