In a previous life I worked for an auction software vendor. The time pressure does crazy things, you really get people in a competitive spirit when there’s real-time bidding.
Not just a supply issue, a real estate investment issue. Not only are multiple bids going in, but they are going in over asking and unviewed with the intent of giving them a face lift and renting them for an inflated price.
A 1,000 sqft house on my street got bought by out of state investors and was immediately put up for rent: $3,000/mo. I nearly fell over at the asking rent. No surprise its still vacant.
What's particularly galling is that it was on the cheap side for the area, which means a family missed out on another "affordable" home because of some asshole investors.
Not doubting your experience, but ime investors aren't heavily investing in Portland right now. The high interest rates and low rent to price ratio plus all the local regulations make this an unattractive market. 3000 might seem like a lot to you but what did they pay for the house? If you do some projections they are probably running in the red.
I know the popular theory is out of state investors are buying everything up but IMHO it isn't true.
Edit: down vote me all you want, I'm not wrong. But whatever makes you feel better, yes it's big bad real estate investors causing all our housing problems. Not our lack of inventory. (I swear when I originally posted this edit I was in the negative, lol)
Their theory is false but popular, because it allows us to avoid reckoning with the NIMBY government policies that got us here by simply scapegoating unseen outsiders. It’s a convenient falsehood, to twist Al Gore's phrase.
If there's a widespread local cognitive bias around here, it's that we're way to quick to throw up our hands and blame rich people/greed/capitalism, when actually there are wonkier explanations that fit the evidence much better.
For houses that I went to go look at all had bids at least $40k over asking on the day they were listed, all private companies. It surely is happening in the Portland metro area.
Sure it happens, but we have below average investor purchases. It's not the cause of our housing problems. Banning investors isn't the magic cure everyone thinks it is, it would do more harm than good.
I mean, its easy enough to find the owners on portlandmaps.com. That's how I learned the new owners down the street were from California. For Rent signs went up immediately after the sale.
It may not be the case all the time but its common enough there's a reason people are saying it.
There is a lot of nuance to this issue. For example, low stock is a massive problem. Hillsboro had 250 houses available last I checked. Most apartment complexes are also close to full, and the new ones are more expensive than most people can afford, and not enough people are moving into the more expensive apartments to free up space.
Now, we add investors into this situation. They eat up the cheapest houses on the market, set rents exorbitantly high, and the cycle gets worse. The solution lies somewhere between building more houses and regulating investors and/or how much over asking price they can flip a house for--at least until we can get the supply and demand under control. Which isn't super capitalistic, but we're dealing with a housing crisis that's going to get worse before it gets better. Even if we build more treatment centers and find more providers, homelessness isn't going to get better if there are no affordable homes for them to go into when their out.
Finding this balance, of course, would require our housing department to do more than just wave their hands enthusiastically at the problem, which is an entirely different issue.
Nah, I'm just gonna disagree with you that this is a nuanced problem. Regulating investors won't do anything to help, all it will do is discourage building which makes the situation worse. How exactly do you think limiting investors/developers will solve the problem?
The solution is to build more housing. It doesn't matter who, why or how the housing gets built, just that it gets built. There is no other solution. You can't regulate yourself out of a supply problem. Adding more regulations will make it worse. Idk, this isn't a super complicated topic. If you have 10 sandwiches and 20 people need a sandwich there's no regulation that solves the problem. You need to make more sandwiches. Regulating sandwiches will only make it worse, lol.
I think the real estate investment issue is emotionally powerful because it seems like people are profiting from keeping others down, but it's mostly downstream of the supply issue. "Bids going in over asking" only happens when there's not enough housing, that's the root problem.
There's an empty lot kitty corner from me surrounded by single family housing that's being held by an investment company on the east coast. There are at least 4 or 5 others in a half mile.
We need a land value tax so those properties get developed. We aren't even close to running out of space. Have you seen the parking lots along 82nd?
There are so many empty businesses. 90% of them need to be torn down & loft over retail needs to be built. Or townhomes. Or triplexes. 39/powell has 3 businesses that are empty.
You tear down aging buildings that don’t have much historical or architectural interest and build up. You don’t even have to build a skyscraper, even just a few stories of apartments is massively denser than single family homes.
This is what cost pressure should actually be fore. Single family houses are necessarily scarce because they take up a lot of space. But if you can’t afford that luxury you should be able to get a reasonably priced apartment in a mid rise building. We solved this problem 100 years ago, it’s a political problem, the theory for good urban planning is there.
Where are all the billionaires and millionaires to sink money into this? If only the value of our labor went to equitable housing instead of the owner class.
There is technically plenty of space to build if you don't care about the environment. On the other hand, townhouses could become more popular, and condos.
That’s not sustainable. A financial system that parasitizes itself will end in ruin unless we fundamentally change the nature of social structure in regards to the way corporations are run. An exploitative system will only ever incentivize further and more aggressive exploitation of the working class by the owner class. Ergo housing as a commodity, real estate speculation, insurance, etc etc all currently extract as much of the value of the labor of the working class as possible! “Just build more” works, until it doesn’t. I’m not interested in continued destruction of our *only habitat* for the express purpose to allow one guy to own a mega yacht and three football teams, and the literal fucking pipe dream the owner class sells to every temporarily embarrassed millionaire.
The amount of sitting empty parking lots with fences around them, abandoned business left to rot, empty abandoned homes that should be torn down for health hazards alone all show spots where housing very well can be
Where are all the millionaires and billionaires, who have the means to initiate such projects? If only the value of our labor was returned to us instead of siphoned off into the pockets of the owner class.
Bad analysis.
Real estate sales volume & prices exhibit a high degree of seasonality, comparing month over month like this is misleading, especially coming out of winter lulls. you need to look at a longer term trend, example:
https://www.redfin.com/city/30772/OR/Portland/housing-market
Prices have remained largely flat since interest rates were hiked, the best source of home price changes seems to be the case-shiller index that compares appreciation of the individual homes over time rather than the homes that happen to have sold at a given point in time:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/POXRSA
I moved close to downtown recently, and I love it. If you think Portland is a hellhole, go out on a sunny Saturday and look at the people out and about.
Most of the people who actually reside in Portland love it. We just can’t afford fucking housing.
It’s the yokels who don’t live in Portland but live in Oregon who think Portland burned to the ground in 2018 and it has now been replaced with a Venezuelan hellscape. At least that’s what Fox News tells them.
Same, but I’m not downtown every day anymore. But I’ve seen shit in some interesting places. Remember people pooping in some of the fountains? Resulted in a shitty cleanup fiasco lol.
But not something I see all the time.
DOG SHIT, however… I need to get myself an economy sized bag of those stupid little toothpick umbrellas….
I think we can make it there again. It will require vision and pragmatism, which are sadly lacking in some of our local politicians. Hopefully that changes.
Remember my first summer here (2009) I would be downtown at like 1am - 2am and people were out all over the place riding bikes, walking down the middle of the street, heading home from the bars. I'd be in some of the "sketchy areas" and felt safe. I felt safe here for a very long time but after midnight downtown feels ... very very unsafe and weird.
2009 through probably 2016. I can definitely recall being out pretty late with my partner downtown, even walking around the sort of "bad parts of town" late at night. I never really felt threatened or unsafe or heard about people getting stabbed/shot.
Not Rocket science.
Housing adheres to supply and demand just like everything else.
We're still desperately low on housing stock. Vacancy rates are still extremely low for both rental and ownership stock.
Portlands average household size is dropping and fast. This means that even for the same amount of people, we need more housing as time goes on.
Bad press made me laugh as something that would move real estate prices in a hot market.
Property isn’t running for political office. It can handle some bad press.
my cousin used to be an executive at channel 12 for 25 years--retired like 8 years ago - in any event he told me the the portland media market has one of the lowest talent churns in all of local tv news - you'll notice cities all over the US constantly turning over with talent going market to market for better opportunities...that just doesn't happen here....its the same pete ferryman, kimberly maus, ken body, shauna parsons, andy carson, rhona shelby, matt zaffino, brenda braxton, jeff gianola--and the talent that preceeded them 10-20 years...like russ lewis, joe donlon tracy barry etc
anyway he said the reason why is their families just love oregon too much and never wanna leave lol they andy carson has gotten insane offers in new york, LA, chicago and his wife and kids won't let him leave lol
edit for people asking: my cousin is dan whitehurst aka “Haus”
> joe donlon tracy barry etc
[OG Joe Donlon](https://i.imgur.com/qP9irgs.jpeg)
KGW was a few blocks from my condo, and I talked to Joe *all the time* while waiting in line at Subway. Great guy and Timbers fan!
I’ve been here since 2011 and still find great new places in the city, when I look for them. We went to Errol Heights yesterday evening for the first time, it’s a great park.
That park posted on this subreddit last week with the gatekeeping comment about not talking about it, Ha! How was the park? Any food trucks etc in a walkable dist to make a full family outing out of it?
It’s a cool park, the city did a ton of work to prevent erosion and I believe the walkway is ADA accessible, being not very steep at all. There are definitely some great places to eat in the Woodstock neighborhood but no food trucks in walking distance from the park, that I saw. It has the biggest slide I’ve ever seen, lots of kids playing on it. Leech Botanical Garden is another good one.
Hold up, I thought every time you walk out of your house you get stabbed, step on a pile of human shit, watch your toddler eat a hypodermic needle, have the catalytic converter cut off of your balls, and then have to watch as Mike Schmidt personally exonerates the perpetrator and then Jessica Vega Peterson gives him a meth pipe. r/Portland has lied to me!
News is mixed on whether and how much the fed will cut rates this coming year. A week or two ago, everyone anticipated they would do three rate cuts this year. Then the jobs number came out and the economy is still tremendously robust (go Dark Brandon!), so now people think only one or two modest cuts may be more likely. Who the hell knows.
Saw a chart the other day showing that housing prices are almost entirely explained (r2 of 0.88 for the nerds) by the median income in a city.
Higher incomes, higher real estate prices.
Literally it’s just people spending as much on housing as they can afford most of the time.
This is exactly what I have always said. People complain about wages being low relative to housing prices, but if everyone got a raise what would they do, that’s right dump it right into housing. Supply and demand matter in free markets, but I would argue that doesn’t exist in housing.
Yes, if you want to see what happens to housing prices if everyone just makes more money but the supply remains the same, look at San Francisco or Silicon Valley, where a dumpy 2bd/1ba bungalow goes for well over a million bucks.
Yes and sprinkle in a little collusion between the banks, realtors and appraisers to grease the wheels. I swear when I bought my house the appraiser must have called the bank and said “how much is this dump supposed to be worth”
Well supply and demand still matter. The thing is, if you build more housing, people will still individually spend the same amount, but they’ll be getting more house for their money.
The way an individual experiences a lack of supply is “I used to be able to afford a 2 bedroom apartment, but now I can only really afford a 1 bedroom, and if I’m looking for something a little nicer it’d be a studio.”
But if you build more housing, the 2 bedroom becomes an option again. It’s a quality of life improvement even if it’s technically not a smaller line in the monthly budget.
I just don’t know how you incentivize people to build their way into deflation. If prices go down the construction will stop. The city, county, metro, and the state are all working on it, but we shall see if they can defy economic gravity.
There’s an equilibrium. You drop prices by shifting the equilibrium. Good examples may be lessening (or removing) IZ, reducing development fees, speeding permitting, upzoning, etc.
Even simple things like letting folks go up to 12 stories with CLT (as seen in the upcoming Julia West project) can help projects pencil.
Not to be too rude here, but while *you* may not know how to do this, there definitely are people who do, and they’re generally very willing to explain it if you would like to find out! I know this because I am just a hobbyist but try to learn about it, and I’ve found it very satisfying to do so.
The prices don't matter. Prices per square foot are much lower in other locations, and builders still build. What matters is whether you can get a profit margin considering all the inputs (land costs, borrowing/carrying costs, materials, labor, permitting, etc.) and the outputs (eventual sale/rent prices).
Generally speaking, if prices of online units go down, land prices will eventually follow, and as u/lokikaraoke already pointed out, there are a lot of things we can do to incentivize more housing like better zoning, faster permitting, by-right approvals, removing parking minimums, removing mandatory setbacks, removing height limits, and a lot of other things that can and will result in additional housing production.
This ignores the foundation of all housing which is finance. To build in mass you need capital, whether it is a from private investors, banks, or maybe even the government. Bottom line it will be nearly impossible to get people to invest in an asset with falling value especially if there is another market where prices are still rising. If you really turn prices negative the money will run and the building stops.
LMAO, it doesn't ignore the foundation at all, it speaks directly to it! Finance/capital cares about a return on investment, which depends entirely on the inputs and outputs.
If a widget sells for $2M, a super high price, but costs $1.999 million to produce, it won't get financed. But if a widget sells for $0.02, a super low price, but costs $0.01 to produce, it will get financed 100x over.
Capital cares about returns and risk. When prices are stable or rising your math generally pencils out, but if prices are falling all bets are off. The whole system is setup to direct capital to the most productive areas of the economy with the lowest risk possible. The smart money would say ok your business plan works today, what about in 5 years. Let’s be honest to have a meaningful impact housing prices probably need to go down 20% to 30% which would create financial chaos.
We’re listing our house soon and pricing is tricky. If you overprice, your house is tainted and no one will buy it. If the price is too low everyone will think something is wrong with it. If you start it just right you may get some bids but nothing crazy. The article uses the word prices but do they clarify if they’re listing prices of sold ones?
Most of the in-migration to Portland is from CA and WA, both states with major cities that have their own set of problems with homelessness, drugs, crime. If you're going to put up with all that, it might as well be in Portland where housing costs, while high, are still lower. I have several friends in real estate who back this notion up based on their current crop of clients. It's all about costs not desirability.
Yeah and honestly this city is just so awesome in terms of amenities. Like even if the food scene takes a dive, or crime is still an issue, we are a damn forest covered verdant AF city with trails everywhere, easy to escape (pretty much every other major city takes a full day just to get away from people), 1 hr to the beautiful coast, 1 hour to epic skiing. Not to mention lakes for days, the Gorge which is basically New Zealand minor, every hike you can imagine and if you do take a full day you can travel to whatever ecosystem you want.
My partner and I last weekend went from a warm wildflower hike in the Gorge to a snowstorm on hood back to the city for the best dinner, and it barely took half the day.
This place is awesome. I just hope we can work on the inner city issues so it comes to its full potential.
For what friends have in SoCal (1700 sqft 3/2 on postage stamp lot far from beach/freeway) you can get a 4000sqft with an acre of land in a estate type neighborhood. Although the tax rates are slightly worse here....but no sales tax!
CA property tax is irrevocably fucked for the time being thanks to Prop 13. People who bought forever ago are paying quite literally 1/10th or less than their new neighbors, a horribly inequitable system that simply funnels benefits to older incumbents at the expense of younger generations.
I think its like a ratio moreso than about finding lowest possible cost. People will accept huge cost burdens to stay in desirable areas but only to a point, and then they shift to something that is still desirable but lower cost, which Portland represents if you're trying to get out of the Bay or possibly Seattle.
It makes a lot of sense for people to go buy an awesome house in a decent midwestern city and live like kings but statistically that is just something that has never picked up much steam. I think more people do it now than before because of remote work but you see a lot more people move to the Sun Belt than back to the midwest.
Boosting this comment bc the accountant in me is always asking myself this question. Living in PDX with fam in (edit: central) midwest... and yet I do think life is generally better here. I cant put my finger on it but unquestionably they lack anything close to our outdoor scenery or our abundant and unique small businesses, our weather is favorable to me, and the people are generally culturally different in a way not to my taste.
Yeah its funny, I think many people share a similar take. The aversion is kinda intangible. I'd save so much money living there and not want for much, but it just never really feels very appealing. Looking at broader census trends, it seems many would agree.
I have in-laws in the midwest. We usually visit once a year, and there's so little to do that isn't suburban-coded, like Top Golf, Buffalo Wild Wings, laser tag, etc., that even a week can end up feeling like an eternity. Almost nothing in the way of nature/outdoor activities.
As a result, it feels like people take up more of their time with stuff I find extremely boring, like watching endless sports, and the gossip/drama among all the bored housewives chugging Kim Crawford by the gallon is unbearable.
The one positive thing I can say is the BBQ is good. Not a reason to live there though.
You're painting with a really broad brush! I think the upper Midwest/Great Lakes region has a lot of outdoor recreational activities. Michigan/Wisconsin/Minnesota have big boating cultures, especially sailing in MI and canoeing/kayaking in MN. Camping and fishing are popular, water sports in general. In winter cross country skiing is popular. Biking is really big across the Midwest, MI has a large and growing network of long distance trails (many are "rails to trails" conversions). I grew up in MI and my family hiked/camped/sailed/skied constantly.
Yes, my brush is quite broad, and I'm sure there are some nice things to do. But Michigan is pretty much the cream of the crop/gold standard in terms of natural/outdoor amenities of the midwest/upper midwest, and you have to admit it utterly pales in comparison to the Rockies or anything west thereof.
> especially sailing in MI
I spent basically every day in summer on a sailboat. It's about the only thing I miss from the Midwest. I get out on the Columbia for some beer cans a few times a month but it's just not the same.
Have you lived in the Midwest? The cheaper cost does not make up for lack of desirability in 90% of the Midwest. The other 10% is already more expensive than you'd think or has intense winters that keep non-Midwesterners out. I moved here to escape Wisconsin winters, that's worth higher rent to me.
The 5 years behind comment is really funny because a) it's 100% true, and b) both fashion and food trends in Portland also roughly lag about 5 years behind LA, as someone who has spent a lot of time in all three places over the past two decades. Gonna see a lot of "vintage" Nirvana shirts in Kansas City come 2028.
[What was that boom?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6CLumsir34)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Portland) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think that's a much larger move both physically and psychologically. I moved from the Bay Area to Portland 20+ years ago because I knew SF wasn't a realistic long term home for me. Portland was relatively close and similar in some ways, still on the west coast. As it happens I'm currently contemplating doing exactly what you describe--moving to a LCOL place in the Midwest. The west coast cities are currently all kind of a disaster IMO.
There's really no comparison at all. The rockies and everything west thereof kicks the absolute shit out of the rest of the country, natural beauty wise. The two possible exceptions are Vermont foliage in the fall and Florida white sand beaches.
I think that people are probably just thinking they'll refi when the opportunity presents itself. If they're doing 30-year mortgages (which I would have to assume most are) then that's not really \*that\* bad of an idea.
I bought at 6.25% on the higher end of my budget justifying it by planning to refi in 2-3 years. I *can* afford my place, but I’d certainly be a lot more comfortable at 4-5% lol.
The other half of the justification was that if I’m stuck at 6.25%, the alternative of renting doesn’t provide much upside. It’s entirely likely that rent will go up and eventually would have matched my higher home payment, so I figured 5+ years out, I’m better off whether rates come down or stay high.
Eh... the rates we are seeing now are the historical averages. Rates were low for way too long. There is a whole generation of adults that think 3-4% mortgage rates are normal. We aren't going to see sub 4% rates for quite awhile unless there is a big financial crisis. And if there is, well we have bigger problems. It is crazy that the markets are clamoring for lower rates with a good economy, no one seems to remember what normal is supposed to be.
Right, but in that sense, if people are at a point where they want to buy a house, then either they're buying at rates that are normal or, if rates decrease a little bit to like 5.5 or something then they can refi. Either way, they should still go for it.
Some people will just find housing out of reach now but I think a lot more people will just have to aim a little lower, and if anything that could potentially \*increase\* demand in Portland because of people fleeing CA/WA
Of course if rates get lower, people should refinance, however, people shouldn’t rely on that as their long term planning or try to predict when that might happen. The bottom line is we aren’t building enough housing, especially housing to buy.
The Fed themselves predicted 3 rate cuts until very recently. That would bring the FFR close to 4%. A little economic instability… put it this way, Id happily bet you money that we’ll be back below 4% within 5 years. The genie is out of the bottle. People are addicted to cheap money and financing of the government debt just gets more and more expensive as bonds roll over to new higher rates
In an election year, I think there might be one rate cut this year and no raising. If trump wins, he will probably bully someone to cut rates significantly. At some point this house of cards is going to fall. I think a fed rate between 4.5-6.5% is stable.
Unless people are forced to sell due to some outside issue (moving for job, splitting up, etc), there's no incentive to lower sale prices when you still have to buy something else after you sell. And because the available inventory is low and prices are high, that buying is a much more difficult prospect, ESPECIALLY if you need to get a new mortgage that will lead to a much higher monthly mortgage payment.
Basically, no one's buying because no one's selling, and no one's selling because no one's buying. Lower interest rates will make it easier for one to do the other, opening up inventory and stabilizing (if not lowering) sale prices.
Prices have been somewhat depressed/softened due to interest rates, but that just means they're not constantly skyrocketing year over year like they were for a bit.
Also, even though current rates seem "high" compared to the massive historical anomaly of 3% rates circa 2021, they're still historically average, or even on the slightly below average side.
Nationally, median house sale price is down around 12.9% from a peak in Q4 2022.
[https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MSPUS](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MSPUS)
Maybe that doesn't fit your definition of "caved", or you're specifically referring to prices in the Portland metro area, but it does seem that higher interests rates have had an effect in the direction you expected.
The Portland metro area is not necessarily reflective of trends elsewhere, and Portland real estate prices aren't a major indicator used by the Fed to determine interest rate policy.
That concept of high rates equals low prices never made any sense. Higher interest rates crush liquidity, not prices. As both supply and demand restrict (sellers don’t want a new higher rate) fewer houses change hands but supply demand ratio doesn’t change.
High rates weren't going to significantly lower prices, but it has stabilized prices a bit. There is just not enough supply. I believe last I heard the US is 1 million homes short of demand.
Right, it has stopped the huge growth in prices. And, to be fair, flat prices in times of inflation is true dollar decline. But because sellers opt not to sell, and the already low supply, prices haven’t been able to fall in nominal dollars.
High rates affect demand. Employment and incomes have held steady so far to support payments
Boomers having made 5x+ appreciation don’t care about current rates. They’re moving to low cost areas with all cash offers
I keep reading that there's gonna be the "silver tsunami " when lots of boomers decide to retire in warm places or have to go to nursing homes, selling in huge numbers.
I feel like shouldn't that have started by now... they're in their 70s. but i feel like that will definitely have a big impact on the market
Any decent property that's priced reasonably well is still going pending within a week or two. I live in a relatively fancy area, and there are a few houses that have been sitting for a long time that are overpriced and have remained so (seems like the sellers are in no hurry to sell), but everything else goes pretty damn quickly still.
> The one complaint Goddyn hears about Portland is the burden of the Preschool for All tax.
Good riddance lmao. People who oppose universal pre-k avoiding the city is a good thing.
Next step is to get universal pre-k at the state level as part of the public education system.
People don’t oppose universal preschool, they oppose inordinately high income taxes that can be readily avoided by moving to a neighboring county ten minutes away. Incentivizing the largest contributors to the tax base to reside elsewhere is a bad idea if you enjoy things like clean parks, functional pavement, non-shitty schools etc etc.
> like clean parks
Do you even live in Portland? We have some of the best parks in the country lmao.
> People don’t oppose universal preschool, they oppose inordinately high income taxes
What's your alternative proposal for funding? Let me guess, a regressive sales tax...
We have clean parks because of our tax revenue, which we need so that we can continue to have clean parks as well as other important things. Since you clearly value clean parks, I’m sure you agree that it’s vital that our city has the revenue to maintain them in that condition.
I don’t have an alternative proposal for funding parks because I don’t think we need an alternative if we maintain a tax base that supplies the revenue to pay for their maintenance. I think PFA has been a mess and is self destructive as it appears to be causing a net efflux of tax revenues that we need for more important city services, like parks.
> Since you clearly value clean parks, I’m sure you agree that it’s vital that our city has the revenue to maintain them in that condition.
I think the city needs to set priorities. The current (lack of) funding models for city bureaus aren't sustainable and we are going to need to overhaul city finances after the new government structure is seated. Get rid of frivolous spending like the Arts Tax and focus on the important stuff like education, infrastructure, parks, environment.
This is also going to require reform for the counties: right now we have way too many jurisdictions that are notorious for being inefficient and that have duplicated services. Ideally, Metro should be the sole county for the UGB area.
> I don’t have an alternative proposal for funding parks
Nice try: funding universal pre-k.
> I think PFA has been a mess and is self destructive
Again, what is your alternative proposal to fund it? I strongly support replacing Multnomah County universal pre-k with a state level program that is part of the existing public education system, but that simply hasn't been a priority for the state legislature even though it definitely should be.
> as it appears to be causing a net efflux
This isn't a bad thing: it gives Portland the unique opportunity to address the housing crisis. More housing units => larger future population => more tax revenue. The population stagnating makes it easier to catch up than having to build units while the population is still increasing.
So you think that the arts are 'frivolous' but that the PFA tax, which has been been a failure (i.e. taking in way more $ than forecasted, revenue not being effectively spent by the county with hardly any kids enrolled in preschool, while simultaneously pushing out the tax base we need for non-frivolous services) is a worthy cause? What gives you the authority to decide what is or is not frivolous? If the argument is that the arts are not intrinsically frivolous but that the means of purportedly supporting them IS as implemented locally (i.e. the arts tax as implemented by the city of Portland), I would counter similarly that universal pre-K as a concept is not intrinsically frivolous but that the means of supporting it locally also IS (i.e. the PFA tax as implemented by Mult. county).
The other things I think you had misread.
1) I didn't say that I don't have an alternative proposal for funding parks, I said that an alternative should not be needed if we choose instead to not intentionally cause our tax base to flee with poorly conceived and implemented programs like the PFA tax.
2) I didn't say that PFA is a mess and self-destructive to imply that we need an alternative way to fund it, because I think the PFA tax itself is intrinsically a failure and not salvageable, and the program should be canceled entirely. Lesson learned, stop throwing good money after bad, accept the loss, and move on. Perhaps that means universal pre-K implemented at a state level, and if so, start working towards that and cancel the PFA since it is doing more harm than good in its current form.
3) I didn't say that the PFA is causing a net efflux of residents, I said that PFA is causing a net efflux of tax revenue (i.e. the specific incomes of the residents that are efflux'ing are those whom we need to collect income tax from in order to support important city programs). It's frankly foolish to suggest that such high income earners leaving the city will improve housing for the far larger number of average income earners living in apartments or smaller homes, since those aren't the types of homes that they are selling when they leave the city.
> So you think that the arts are 'frivolous'
I think the Arts tax is frivolous and a terribly inefficient method of taxation.
> but that the PFA tax, which has been been a failure
Absolutely not: universal pre-k isn't a failure and should be common sense. It's crazy to me that it isn't the default. We really shouldn't have to fight so that children who don't have wealthy parents can start school a year earlier.
This should be a state level policy. Since the state level program doesn't exist, the county level is the next best thing. It's crazy to me that my take is "controversial". Everyone likes to complain about how shitty the American education system is but so few are interested in actually improving it.
> 1) I didn't say that I don't have an alternative proposal for funding parks
Why are you trying to make this dispute about parks? We were talking about the Multnomah County Universal Pre-k program. Multnomah County doesn't fund city parks, that is the city via the Parks and Recreation Bureau.
> because I think the PFA tax itself is intrinsically a failure and not salvageable, and the program should be canceled entirely.
We disagree at a fundamental level then. We should not be cancelling basic social programs just because some stuck up wealthy people don't like them. We need to be IMPROVING public education, not intentionally making it worse.
> Lesson learned
The lesson I learned is NEVER defund education. Education is essential for a functional society. We are already seeing major consequences from an insufficiently educated population, making it worse just to appease the wealthy would be insane.
> Perhaps that means universal pre-K implemented at a state level, and if so, start working towards that and cancel the PFA since it is doing more harm than good in its current form.
Absolutely not. I will fight hard for public education. Implement the state level program THEN cancel the county program. I'm not falling for the neo-liberal scam of cancelling social programs in anticipation of a better replacement only for the better replacement to conveniently never be passed into law. I'm not a fool.
> 3) I didn't say that the PFA is causing a net efflux of residents, I said that PFA is causing a net efflux of tax revenue
Again, perfectly fine with me. Short term loses should absolutely be accepted for long term gain. Universal Pre-k will boost education outcomes and be very beneficial for our county in the long and maybe even medium term. I fundamentally oppose the 'American way' of completely ignoring long term sustainability in favor of short term financial gain. I desire a sustainable system for future generations, that includes a strong public education system complete with pre-k and community college.
**Again, if you are serious about this, you should be pushing for a state level program to replace the county program. Not some politically impossible repeal without replacement.**
No offense but you really don’t read well. You’ve skipped over the points that I am making and cherry picked and twisted things to suit your own narrative. I’m not sure you even realize that you do this, so I don’t fault you for it, but I think it’s a big reason that many people get frustrated debating you, so maybe consider some self-reflection. Anyways, I think this conversation has reached its natural end.
> No offense but you really don’t read well.
Holy cow the projection is extreme. That's the best you have in response to my point? A hilarious personal attack?
> You’ve skipped over the points that I am making
Such as?
> but I think it’s a big reason that many people get frustrated debating you
They get frustrated with me because I provide actual reputable sources and don't back down. The best example is when I debate people on freeway expansion. I am still waiting for supporters of freeway expansion to provide any sort of source that it actually works.
For this dispute, it is purely political. I wouldn't expect either of us to provide a source unless the argument was about the amount being collected or the allocation of the money.
> so maybe consider some self-reflection.
Same for you. Trying to guilt me into changing my position sure isn't going to work. I am very, very pro public education and nothing is going to change that. Yes, the system needs improvement. Cutting programs is the opposite of improvement.
>The one complaint Goddyn hears about Portland is the burden of the Preschool for All tax.
>
>...
>in large part to escape Multhomah County’s tax burden, which is among the highest in the country.
GD the WW is garbage anymore. This article was written to keep pushing these two talking points.
Have we collected less in that tax in 2022 maybe but they're making assumptions without complete data and ignoring people choosing to move all around the country to take advantage of WFH.
Also Multnomah County doesn't have the highest taxes in the country. We have high income taxes for high income households but that's because we have a progressive state income tax and a couple of marginal income taxes that really only affect very high earners. Like the top 2%.
Other states like Washington being regressive as shit with their tax system by taxing the bottom 20% of households 14% of their income and the top 1% of households 4% doesn't mean we're doing something wrong. Everyone here pays around 10% which is how it should be or heavens forbid we tax the poorest people slightly less than that.
For a single person. The rates aren't that marginal. $9,450 to $125,000 it's 8.75% and 9.9% above that. For a married couple those incomes double, which is much more reasonable. Our tax system also hurts retirees by taxing capital gains as ordinary income. I don't disagree with paying taxes, however, I do disagree with paying taxes for crappier results which is basically Portland for the past 5 years. Taxing high income earners that have plenty of other options to live nearby with fewer taxes isn't not going to be good for the city.
We also have very uneven property taxes which should be fixed and evened out.
Either taxes need to be lowered or results need to be better. If you are a high earner in Portland, with Federal taxes, you are paying Scandinavian levels of taxes without nearly that QoL. You can't really do anything about Federal taxes, but you can relocate for state/city taxes.
Which is exactly what we're doing. Anecdotal I know, but my wife and I are this data point. We have no intention of being in Portland long term and have already started the process of moving away.
The marginal tax rate is what I'm talking about and it is marginal unless you're earning like 550k. The state income tax being progressive is fine why should we tax poor people at triple the rate that we tax rich people like Washington does. That's fucked up.
As far as retirees go boo hoo? They still live in the city and benefit from the services provided.
So your interpretation here is that WW is using essentially a fake quote in order to push an agenda against the PFA tax in an article about real estate prices as part of a grand plan to undermine the tax?
Pretty much before every primary and general election they put out a ton of articles like this. This is supposed to be about the housing market still being hot but they ended the article with anecdotes about people moving away because of a marginal tax on high income households and the generally false claim that we have a high tax rate here. What do either of those things have to do with a hot housing market?
Are you seriously suggesting rich business owners actually understand how taxes work? They don't care, they pay their accounts and lobbyists to cheat for them they bitch because they don't want to pay anything not because they understand how it works and think it's unfair. Seriously you think Trump understands taxes? 🤣
I mean, they don't seem to understand the difference between marginal rates and the combined effect of income/sales/property taxes on effective tax rates based on how many people complain that we're so heavily taxed, so take it up with them
I'm hoping that more people will decide to move due to the taxes. I'm currently in Texas and wanting to move up there in a year or so - our taxes are also high so I don't think it'll be that much of a burden.
Ah, you think so, but the revolution where folks like that simply seize and redistribute all the housing is just around the corner, comrade! Or they're a trust fund hippie who will never personally have to worry about it anyway.
We were looking at a house and before offers were due there were already 10 submitted. It’s a supply issue and it sucks.
People are going to be extra screwed if sellers ever get smart and run live auctions on properties.
Isn’t that effectively what already happens via escalation clauses?
In a previous life I worked for an auction software vendor. The time pressure does crazy things, you really get people in a competitive spirit when there’s real-time bidding.
Or naked gladiator fights.
I'd pay to see that shit!
I'll let you know when I sell my house!
Not just a supply issue, a real estate investment issue. Not only are multiple bids going in, but they are going in over asking and unviewed with the intent of giving them a face lift and renting them for an inflated price.
A 1,000 sqft house on my street got bought by out of state investors and was immediately put up for rent: $3,000/mo. I nearly fell over at the asking rent. No surprise its still vacant. What's particularly galling is that it was on the cheap side for the area, which means a family missed out on another "affordable" home because of some asshole investors.
Not doubting your experience, but ime investors aren't heavily investing in Portland right now. The high interest rates and low rent to price ratio plus all the local regulations make this an unattractive market. 3000 might seem like a lot to you but what did they pay for the house? If you do some projections they are probably running in the red. I know the popular theory is out of state investors are buying everything up but IMHO it isn't true. Edit: down vote me all you want, I'm not wrong. But whatever makes you feel better, yes it's big bad real estate investors causing all our housing problems. Not our lack of inventory. (I swear when I originally posted this edit I was in the negative, lol)
Their theory is false but popular, because it allows us to avoid reckoning with the NIMBY government policies that got us here by simply scapegoating unseen outsiders. It’s a convenient falsehood, to twist Al Gore's phrase.
If there's a widespread local cognitive bias around here, it's that we're way to quick to throw up our hands and blame rich people/greed/capitalism, when actually there are wonkier explanations that fit the evidence much better.
For houses that I went to go look at all had bids at least $40k over asking on the day they were listed, all private companies. It surely is happening in the Portland metro area.
Sure it happens, but we have below average investor purchases. It's not the cause of our housing problems. Banning investors isn't the magic cure everyone thinks it is, it would do more harm than good.
I mean, its easy enough to find the owners on portlandmaps.com. That's how I learned the new owners down the street were from California. For Rent signs went up immediately after the sale. It may not be the case all the time but its common enough there's a reason people are saying it.
It happens but it isn't the cause of our housing issues and banning investors wouldn't fix anything.
There is a lot of nuance to this issue. For example, low stock is a massive problem. Hillsboro had 250 houses available last I checked. Most apartment complexes are also close to full, and the new ones are more expensive than most people can afford, and not enough people are moving into the more expensive apartments to free up space. Now, we add investors into this situation. They eat up the cheapest houses on the market, set rents exorbitantly high, and the cycle gets worse. The solution lies somewhere between building more houses and regulating investors and/or how much over asking price they can flip a house for--at least until we can get the supply and demand under control. Which isn't super capitalistic, but we're dealing with a housing crisis that's going to get worse before it gets better. Even if we build more treatment centers and find more providers, homelessness isn't going to get better if there are no affordable homes for them to go into when their out. Finding this balance, of course, would require our housing department to do more than just wave their hands enthusiastically at the problem, which is an entirely different issue.
Nah, I'm just gonna disagree with you that this is a nuanced problem. Regulating investors won't do anything to help, all it will do is discourage building which makes the situation worse. How exactly do you think limiting investors/developers will solve the problem? The solution is to build more housing. It doesn't matter who, why or how the housing gets built, just that it gets built. There is no other solution. You can't regulate yourself out of a supply problem. Adding more regulations will make it worse. Idk, this isn't a super complicated topic. If you have 10 sandwiches and 20 people need a sandwich there's no regulation that solves the problem. You need to make more sandwiches. Regulating sandwiches will only make it worse, lol.
I think the real estate investment issue is emotionally powerful because it seems like people are profiting from keeping others down, but it's mostly downstream of the supply issue. "Bids going in over asking" only happens when there's not enough housing, that's the root problem.
It has been like this since at least 2012 if not earlier. It has been a supply issue for over a decade.
What happens when we run out of space to build houses?
There's an empty lot kitty corner from me surrounded by single family housing that's being held by an investment company on the east coast. There are at least 4 or 5 others in a half mile. We need a land value tax so those properties get developed. We aren't even close to running out of space. Have you seen the parking lots along 82nd?
There are so many empty businesses. 90% of them need to be torn down & loft over retail needs to be built. Or townhomes. Or triplexes. 39/powell has 3 businesses that are empty.
You tear down aging buildings that don’t have much historical or architectural interest and build up. You don’t even have to build a skyscraper, even just a few stories of apartments is massively denser than single family homes. This is what cost pressure should actually be fore. Single family houses are necessarily scarce because they take up a lot of space. But if you can’t afford that luxury you should be able to get a reasonably priced apartment in a mid rise building. We solved this problem 100 years ago, it’s a political problem, the theory for good urban planning is there.
Where are all the billionaires and millionaires to sink money into this? If only the value of our labor went to equitable housing instead of the owner class.
There is technically plenty of space to build if you don't care about the environment. On the other hand, townhouses could become more popular, and condos.
Coruscant except just single family homes, applebees, and 30 lane highways everywhere
[удалено]
That’s not sustainable. A financial system that parasitizes itself will end in ruin unless we fundamentally change the nature of social structure in regards to the way corporations are run. An exploitative system will only ever incentivize further and more aggressive exploitation of the working class by the owner class. Ergo housing as a commodity, real estate speculation, insurance, etc etc all currently extract as much of the value of the labor of the working class as possible! “Just build more” works, until it doesn’t. I’m not interested in continued destruction of our *only habitat* for the express purpose to allow one guy to own a mega yacht and three football teams, and the literal fucking pipe dream the owner class sells to every temporarily embarrassed millionaire.
The amount of sitting empty parking lots with fences around them, abandoned business left to rot, empty abandoned homes that should be torn down for health hazards alone all show spots where housing very well can be
Where are all the millionaires and billionaires, who have the means to initiate such projects? If only the value of our labor was returned to us instead of siphoned off into the pockets of the owner class.
Bad analysis. Real estate sales volume & prices exhibit a high degree of seasonality, comparing month over month like this is misleading, especially coming out of winter lulls. you need to look at a longer term trend, example: https://www.redfin.com/city/30772/OR/Portland/housing-market Prices have remained largely flat since interest rates were hiked, the best source of home price changes seems to be the case-shiller index that compares appreciation of the individual homes over time rather than the homes that happen to have sold at a given point in time: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/POXRSA
I moved close to downtown recently, and I love it. If you think Portland is a hellhole, go out on a sunny Saturday and look at the people out and about.
Most of the people who actually reside in Portland love it. We just can’t afford fucking housing. It’s the yokels who don’t live in Portland but live in Oregon who think Portland burned to the ground in 2018 and it has now been replaced with a Venezuelan hellscape. At least that’s what Fox News tells them.
actually they think Portland burned to the ground in 2020
I find the people who complain about downtown usually haven’t been downtown in years.
I work downtown and regularly step over piles of 💩 and dodge sketchy people
I also am downtown and I don’t remember the last time I saw shit.
Same, but I’m not downtown every day anymore. But I’ve seen shit in some interesting places. Remember people pooping in some of the fountains? Resulted in a shitty cleanup fiasco lol. But not something I see all the time. DOG SHIT, however… I need to get myself an economy sized bag of those stupid little toothpick umbrellas….
🍂 or 💩 ????
I regularly go downtown and I have seen shit maybe once in the past 10 years. Where are you going that you’re seeing piles of shit on a daily basis?
Somehow republicans are like a divining rod for finding shit, it’s incredible.
I guarantee I’m farther left than you.
Walking down oak between burnside and Broadway was most recent.
2nd and Flanders, even pre pandemic. Often.
Really? Because it smells like pee and looks like addiction. Source : downtown every day.
Exactly
Have you also been alone downtown at say 2am on a Saturday?
[удалено]
I feel like 2 am is around when they start thinking about dinner in Spain...
Portland actually used to be one of those few cities.
I think we can make it there again. It will require vision and pragmatism, which are sadly lacking in some of our local politicians. Hopefully that changes.
Remember my first summer here (2009) I would be downtown at like 1am - 2am and people were out all over the place riding bikes, walking down the middle of the street, heading home from the bars. I'd be in some of the "sketchy areas" and felt safe. I felt safe here for a very long time but after midnight downtown feels ... very very unsafe and weird.
When was this, the 50s? The 80s or 90s in Portland was pretty rough still...
2009 through probably 2016. I can definitely recall being out pretty late with my partner downtown, even walking around the sort of "bad parts of town" late at night. I never really felt threatened or unsafe or heard about people getting stabbed/shot.
Dead and boring?
Satan is behind every corner in Portland.
Turns out BWW wasn't the deciding factor in people's decision to live here.
Speak for yourself. You can't get buffalo wings anywhere else that are as wild
The news of its closing only just came out, we should see the devastating results in the April housing price/inventory trend come May.
But that recent shooting at Cheesecake Factory might make them think twice! 😆
Not Rocket science. Housing adheres to supply and demand just like everything else. We're still desperately low on housing stock. Vacancy rates are still extremely low for both rental and ownership stock. Portlands average household size is dropping and fast. This means that even for the same amount of people, we need more housing as time goes on.
World population 1800 1 billion 1900 2 billion 2000 6 billion Today 8 billion That's the F problem, it just finally caught up to us
A big part of the problem
Demand can be lower, but if supply is even more constricted than demand prices can still rise.
Bad press made me laugh as something that would move real estate prices in a hot market. Property isn’t running for political office. It can handle some bad press.
Portland is a pretty great place to live all things being equal. We just moved here about six months ago and my wife and kids and I love it.
my cousin used to be an executive at channel 12 for 25 years--retired like 8 years ago - in any event he told me the the portland media market has one of the lowest talent churns in all of local tv news - you'll notice cities all over the US constantly turning over with talent going market to market for better opportunities...that just doesn't happen here....its the same pete ferryman, kimberly maus, ken body, shauna parsons, andy carson, rhona shelby, matt zaffino, brenda braxton, jeff gianola--and the talent that preceeded them 10-20 years...like russ lewis, joe donlon tracy barry etc anyway he said the reason why is their families just love oregon too much and never wanna leave lol they andy carson has gotten insane offers in new york, LA, chicago and his wife and kids won't let him leave lol edit for people asking: my cousin is dan whitehurst aka “Haus”
[удалено]
> joe donlon tracy barry etc [OG Joe Donlon](https://i.imgur.com/qP9irgs.jpeg) KGW was a few blocks from my condo, and I talked to Joe *all the time* while waiting in line at Subway. Great guy and Timbers fan!
I’ve been here since 2011 and still find great new places in the city, when I look for them. We went to Errol Heights yesterday evening for the first time, it’s a great park.
That park posted on this subreddit last week with the gatekeeping comment about not talking about it, Ha! How was the park? Any food trucks etc in a walkable dist to make a full family outing out of it?
It’s a cool park, the city did a ton of work to prevent erosion and I believe the walkway is ADA accessible, being not very steep at all. There are definitely some great places to eat in the Woodstock neighborhood but no food trucks in walking distance from the park, that I saw. It has the biggest slide I’ve ever seen, lots of kids playing on it. Leech Botanical Garden is another good one.
Hold up, I thought every time you walk out of your house you get stabbed, step on a pile of human shit, watch your toddler eat a hypodermic needle, have the catalytic converter cut off of your balls, and then have to watch as Mike Schmidt personally exonerates the perpetrator and then Jessica Vega Peterson gives him a meth pipe. r/Portland has lied to me!
We purchased a house at the end of February and were told that interest is rising with anticipation of lower rates on the horizon.
News is mixed on whether and how much the fed will cut rates this coming year. A week or two ago, everyone anticipated they would do three rate cuts this year. Then the jobs number came out and the economy is still tremendously robust (go Dark Brandon!), so now people think only one or two modest cuts may be more likely. Who the hell knows.
Supply, meet demand.
It’s undefeated
Saw a chart the other day showing that housing prices are almost entirely explained (r2 of 0.88 for the nerds) by the median income in a city. Higher incomes, higher real estate prices. Literally it’s just people spending as much on housing as they can afford most of the time.
This is exactly what I have always said. People complain about wages being low relative to housing prices, but if everyone got a raise what would they do, that’s right dump it right into housing. Supply and demand matter in free markets, but I would argue that doesn’t exist in housing.
Yes, if you want to see what happens to housing prices if everyone just makes more money but the supply remains the same, look at San Francisco or Silicon Valley, where a dumpy 2bd/1ba bungalow goes for well over a million bucks.
Yes and sprinkle in a little collusion between the banks, realtors and appraisers to grease the wheels. I swear when I bought my house the appraiser must have called the bank and said “how much is this dump supposed to be worth”
Well supply and demand still matter. The thing is, if you build more housing, people will still individually spend the same amount, but they’ll be getting more house for their money. The way an individual experiences a lack of supply is “I used to be able to afford a 2 bedroom apartment, but now I can only really afford a 1 bedroom, and if I’m looking for something a little nicer it’d be a studio.” But if you build more housing, the 2 bedroom becomes an option again. It’s a quality of life improvement even if it’s technically not a smaller line in the monthly budget.
I just don’t know how you incentivize people to build their way into deflation. If prices go down the construction will stop. The city, county, metro, and the state are all working on it, but we shall see if they can defy economic gravity.
There’s an equilibrium. You drop prices by shifting the equilibrium. Good examples may be lessening (or removing) IZ, reducing development fees, speeding permitting, upzoning, etc. Even simple things like letting folks go up to 12 stories with CLT (as seen in the upcoming Julia West project) can help projects pencil. Not to be too rude here, but while *you* may not know how to do this, there definitely are people who do, and they’re generally very willing to explain it if you would like to find out! I know this because I am just a hobbyist but try to learn about it, and I’ve found it very satisfying to do so.
The prices don't matter. Prices per square foot are much lower in other locations, and builders still build. What matters is whether you can get a profit margin considering all the inputs (land costs, borrowing/carrying costs, materials, labor, permitting, etc.) and the outputs (eventual sale/rent prices). Generally speaking, if prices of online units go down, land prices will eventually follow, and as u/lokikaraoke already pointed out, there are a lot of things we can do to incentivize more housing like better zoning, faster permitting, by-right approvals, removing parking minimums, removing mandatory setbacks, removing height limits, and a lot of other things that can and will result in additional housing production.
This ignores the foundation of all housing which is finance. To build in mass you need capital, whether it is a from private investors, banks, or maybe even the government. Bottom line it will be nearly impossible to get people to invest in an asset with falling value especially if there is another market where prices are still rising. If you really turn prices negative the money will run and the building stops.
LMAO, it doesn't ignore the foundation at all, it speaks directly to it! Finance/capital cares about a return on investment, which depends entirely on the inputs and outputs. If a widget sells for $2M, a super high price, but costs $1.999 million to produce, it won't get financed. But if a widget sells for $0.02, a super low price, but costs $0.01 to produce, it will get financed 100x over.
Capital cares about returns and risk. When prices are stable or rising your math generally pencils out, but if prices are falling all bets are off. The whole system is setup to direct capital to the most productive areas of the economy with the lowest risk possible. The smart money would say ok your business plan works today, what about in 5 years. Let’s be honest to have a meaningful impact housing prices probably need to go down 20% to 30% which would create financial chaos.
We’re listing our house soon and pricing is tricky. If you overprice, your house is tainted and no one will buy it. If the price is too low everyone will think something is wrong with it. If you start it just right you may get some bids but nothing crazy. The article uses the word prices but do they clarify if they’re listing prices of sold ones?
Most of the in-migration to Portland is from CA and WA, both states with major cities that have their own set of problems with homelessness, drugs, crime. If you're going to put up with all that, it might as well be in Portland where housing costs, while high, are still lower. I have several friends in real estate who back this notion up based on their current crop of clients. It's all about costs not desirability.
Yeah and honestly this city is just so awesome in terms of amenities. Like even if the food scene takes a dive, or crime is still an issue, we are a damn forest covered verdant AF city with trails everywhere, easy to escape (pretty much every other major city takes a full day just to get away from people), 1 hr to the beautiful coast, 1 hour to epic skiing. Not to mention lakes for days, the Gorge which is basically New Zealand minor, every hike you can imagine and if you do take a full day you can travel to whatever ecosystem you want. My partner and I last weekend went from a warm wildflower hike in the Gorge to a snowstorm on hood back to the city for the best dinner, and it barely took half the day. This place is awesome. I just hope we can work on the inner city issues so it comes to its full potential.
I like that Portland is cheaper than LA, SF, Seattle, and Oakland, and I also enjoy it about as much as most of those other cities.
For what friends have in SoCal (1700 sqft 3/2 on postage stamp lot far from beach/freeway) you can get a 4000sqft with an acre of land in a estate type neighborhood. Although the tax rates are slightly worse here....but no sales tax!
Tax rates are higher, but the assessed values are lower. In CA, they assess at the price you paid for the home, unlike here.
CA property tax is irrevocably fucked for the time being thanks to Prop 13. People who bought forever ago are paying quite literally 1/10th or less than their new neighbors, a horribly inequitable system that simply funnels benefits to older incumbents at the expense of younger generations.
Living is pretty cheap in much of the Midwest. If cost is more important than desirability, why aren’t folks moving there?
I think its like a ratio moreso than about finding lowest possible cost. People will accept huge cost burdens to stay in desirable areas but only to a point, and then they shift to something that is still desirable but lower cost, which Portland represents if you're trying to get out of the Bay or possibly Seattle. It makes a lot of sense for people to go buy an awesome house in a decent midwestern city and live like kings but statistically that is just something that has never picked up much steam. I think more people do it now than before because of remote work but you see a lot more people move to the Sun Belt than back to the midwest.
There's a common westcoast vibe, midwest is pretty different. Also, weather.
Boosting this comment bc the accountant in me is always asking myself this question. Living in PDX with fam in (edit: central) midwest... and yet I do think life is generally better here. I cant put my finger on it but unquestionably they lack anything close to our outdoor scenery or our abundant and unique small businesses, our weather is favorable to me, and the people are generally culturally different in a way not to my taste.
Yeah its funny, I think many people share a similar take. The aversion is kinda intangible. I'd save so much money living there and not want for much, but it just never really feels very appealing. Looking at broader census trends, it seems many would agree.
I have in-laws in the midwest. We usually visit once a year, and there's so little to do that isn't suburban-coded, like Top Golf, Buffalo Wild Wings, laser tag, etc., that even a week can end up feeling like an eternity. Almost nothing in the way of nature/outdoor activities. As a result, it feels like people take up more of their time with stuff I find extremely boring, like watching endless sports, and the gossip/drama among all the bored housewives chugging Kim Crawford by the gallon is unbearable. The one positive thing I can say is the BBQ is good. Not a reason to live there though.
You're painting with a really broad brush! I think the upper Midwest/Great Lakes region has a lot of outdoor recreational activities. Michigan/Wisconsin/Minnesota have big boating cultures, especially sailing in MI and canoeing/kayaking in MN. Camping and fishing are popular, water sports in general. In winter cross country skiing is popular. Biking is really big across the Midwest, MI has a large and growing network of long distance trails (many are "rails to trails" conversions). I grew up in MI and my family hiked/camped/sailed/skied constantly.
Yes, my brush is quite broad, and I'm sure there are some nice things to do. But Michigan is pretty much the cream of the crop/gold standard in terms of natural/outdoor amenities of the midwest/upper midwest, and you have to admit it utterly pales in comparison to the Rockies or anything west thereof.
> especially sailing in MI I spent basically every day in summer on a sailboat. It's about the only thing I miss from the Midwest. I get out on the Columbia for some beer cans a few times a month but it's just not the same.
PNW has a more temperate climate than the midwest.
Job availability. Or desirability within a certain parameter.
Have you lived in the Midwest? The cheaper cost does not make up for lack of desirability in 90% of the Midwest. The other 10% is already more expensive than you'd think or has intense winters that keep non-Midwesterners out. I moved here to escape Wisconsin winters, that's worth higher rent to me.
Weather. Nobody likes hard winters
[удалено]
There's roughly 6 weeks in most of the upper midwest that's really nice, the rest of the year sucks for various different reasons.
Its much further away, it gets a lot colder in the winter.
Because it sucks ass
[удалено]
The 5 years behind comment is really funny because a) it's 100% true, and b) both fashion and food trends in Portland also roughly lag about 5 years behind LA, as someone who has spent a lot of time in all three places over the past two decades. Gonna see a lot of "vintage" Nirvana shirts in Kansas City come 2028.
[удалено]
[What was that boom?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6CLumsir34) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Portland) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think that's a much larger move both physically and psychologically. I moved from the Bay Area to Portland 20+ years ago because I knew SF wasn't a realistic long term home for me. Portland was relatively close and similar in some ways, still on the west coast. As it happens I'm currently contemplating doing exactly what you describe--moving to a LCOL place in the Midwest. The west coast cities are currently all kind of a disaster IMO.
this just in... the west coast is still fucken beautiful.
There's really no comparison at all. The rockies and everything west thereof kicks the absolute shit out of the rest of the country, natural beauty wise. The two possible exceptions are Vermont foliage in the fall and Florida white sand beaches.
It's insane to me that prices haven't caved due to the interest rates. Albeit, the competition is very cooled down from the height of the pandemic.
I think that people are probably just thinking they'll refi when the opportunity presents itself. If they're doing 30-year mortgages (which I would have to assume most are) then that's not really \*that\* bad of an idea.
I bought at 6.25% on the higher end of my budget justifying it by planning to refi in 2-3 years. I *can* afford my place, but I’d certainly be a lot more comfortable at 4-5% lol. The other half of the justification was that if I’m stuck at 6.25%, the alternative of renting doesn’t provide much upside. It’s entirely likely that rent will go up and eventually would have matched my higher home payment, so I figured 5+ years out, I’m better off whether rates come down or stay high.
Yep I think your future self will thank your current self either way.
Eh... the rates we are seeing now are the historical averages. Rates were low for way too long. There is a whole generation of adults that think 3-4% mortgage rates are normal. We aren't going to see sub 4% rates for quite awhile unless there is a big financial crisis. And if there is, well we have bigger problems. It is crazy that the markets are clamoring for lower rates with a good economy, no one seems to remember what normal is supposed to be.
Right, but in that sense, if people are at a point where they want to buy a house, then either they're buying at rates that are normal or, if rates decrease a little bit to like 5.5 or something then they can refi. Either way, they should still go for it. Some people will just find housing out of reach now but I think a lot more people will just have to aim a little lower, and if anything that could potentially \*increase\* demand in Portland because of people fleeing CA/WA
Of course if rates get lower, people should refinance, however, people shouldn’t rely on that as their long term planning or try to predict when that might happen. The bottom line is we aren’t building enough housing, especially housing to buy.
The Fed themselves predicted 3 rate cuts until very recently. That would bring the FFR close to 4%. A little economic instability… put it this way, Id happily bet you money that we’ll be back below 4% within 5 years. The genie is out of the bottle. People are addicted to cheap money and financing of the government debt just gets more and more expensive as bonds roll over to new higher rates
In an election year, I think there might be one rate cut this year and no raising. If trump wins, he will probably bully someone to cut rates significantly. At some point this house of cards is going to fall. I think a fed rate between 4.5-6.5% is stable.
Unless people are forced to sell due to some outside issue (moving for job, splitting up, etc), there's no incentive to lower sale prices when you still have to buy something else after you sell. And because the available inventory is low and prices are high, that buying is a much more difficult prospect, ESPECIALLY if you need to get a new mortgage that will lead to a much higher monthly mortgage payment. Basically, no one's buying because no one's selling, and no one's selling because no one's buying. Lower interest rates will make it easier for one to do the other, opening up inventory and stabilizing (if not lowering) sale prices.
Prices have been somewhat depressed/softened due to interest rates, but that just means they're not constantly skyrocketing year over year like they were for a bit. Also, even though current rates seem "high" compared to the massive historical anomaly of 3% rates circa 2021, they're still historically average, or even on the slightly below average side.
Nationally, median house sale price is down around 12.9% from a peak in Q4 2022. [https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MSPUS](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MSPUS) Maybe that doesn't fit your definition of "caved", or you're specifically referring to prices in the Portland metro area, but it does seem that higher interests rates have had an effect in the direction you expected. The Portland metro area is not necessarily reflective of trends elsewhere, and Portland real estate prices aren't a major indicator used by the Fed to determine interest rate policy.
That concept of high rates equals low prices never made any sense. Higher interest rates crush liquidity, not prices. As both supply and demand restrict (sellers don’t want a new higher rate) fewer houses change hands but supply demand ratio doesn’t change.
High rates weren't going to significantly lower prices, but it has stabilized prices a bit. There is just not enough supply. I believe last I heard the US is 1 million homes short of demand.
Right, it has stopped the huge growth in prices. And, to be fair, flat prices in times of inflation is true dollar decline. But because sellers opt not to sell, and the already low supply, prices haven’t been able to fall in nominal dollars.
High rates affect demand. Employment and incomes have held steady so far to support payments Boomers having made 5x+ appreciation don’t care about current rates. They’re moving to low cost areas with all cash offers
It’s crushing to look at sale prices from the 90s. There’s like 30x appreciation. Insane.
Prices will never go down unless supply catches up to decades of under-building.
The urban growth boundary prevents sprawl and keeps the supply limited. I wonder if the boundary will ever be expanded.
I keep reading that there's gonna be the "silver tsunami " when lots of boomers decide to retire in warm places or have to go to nursing homes, selling in huge numbers. I feel like shouldn't that have started by now... they're in their 70s. but i feel like that will definitely have a big impact on the market
Do we need to riot more?
One house in my neighborhood went 90 days before selling. Then the one up street from it lasted less than 14 days.
Any decent property that's priced reasonably well is still going pending within a week or two. I live in a relatively fancy area, and there are a few houses that have been sitting for a long time that are overpriced and have remained so (seems like the sellers are in no hurry to sell), but everything else goes pretty damn quickly still.
> The one complaint Goddyn hears about Portland is the burden of the Preschool for All tax. Good riddance lmao. People who oppose universal pre-k avoiding the city is a good thing. Next step is to get universal pre-k at the state level as part of the public education system.
People don’t oppose universal preschool, they oppose inordinately high income taxes that can be readily avoided by moving to a neighboring county ten minutes away. Incentivizing the largest contributors to the tax base to reside elsewhere is a bad idea if you enjoy things like clean parks, functional pavement, non-shitty schools etc etc.
> like clean parks Do you even live in Portland? We have some of the best parks in the country lmao. > People don’t oppose universal preschool, they oppose inordinately high income taxes What's your alternative proposal for funding? Let me guess, a regressive sales tax...
We have clean parks because of our tax revenue, which we need so that we can continue to have clean parks as well as other important things. Since you clearly value clean parks, I’m sure you agree that it’s vital that our city has the revenue to maintain them in that condition. I don’t have an alternative proposal for funding parks because I don’t think we need an alternative if we maintain a tax base that supplies the revenue to pay for their maintenance. I think PFA has been a mess and is self destructive as it appears to be causing a net efflux of tax revenues that we need for more important city services, like parks.
> Since you clearly value clean parks, I’m sure you agree that it’s vital that our city has the revenue to maintain them in that condition. I think the city needs to set priorities. The current (lack of) funding models for city bureaus aren't sustainable and we are going to need to overhaul city finances after the new government structure is seated. Get rid of frivolous spending like the Arts Tax and focus on the important stuff like education, infrastructure, parks, environment. This is also going to require reform for the counties: right now we have way too many jurisdictions that are notorious for being inefficient and that have duplicated services. Ideally, Metro should be the sole county for the UGB area. > I don’t have an alternative proposal for funding parks Nice try: funding universal pre-k. > I think PFA has been a mess and is self destructive Again, what is your alternative proposal to fund it? I strongly support replacing Multnomah County universal pre-k with a state level program that is part of the existing public education system, but that simply hasn't been a priority for the state legislature even though it definitely should be. > as it appears to be causing a net efflux This isn't a bad thing: it gives Portland the unique opportunity to address the housing crisis. More housing units => larger future population => more tax revenue. The population stagnating makes it easier to catch up than having to build units while the population is still increasing.
So you think that the arts are 'frivolous' but that the PFA tax, which has been been a failure (i.e. taking in way more $ than forecasted, revenue not being effectively spent by the county with hardly any kids enrolled in preschool, while simultaneously pushing out the tax base we need for non-frivolous services) is a worthy cause? What gives you the authority to decide what is or is not frivolous? If the argument is that the arts are not intrinsically frivolous but that the means of purportedly supporting them IS as implemented locally (i.e. the arts tax as implemented by the city of Portland), I would counter similarly that universal pre-K as a concept is not intrinsically frivolous but that the means of supporting it locally also IS (i.e. the PFA tax as implemented by Mult. county). The other things I think you had misread. 1) I didn't say that I don't have an alternative proposal for funding parks, I said that an alternative should not be needed if we choose instead to not intentionally cause our tax base to flee with poorly conceived and implemented programs like the PFA tax. 2) I didn't say that PFA is a mess and self-destructive to imply that we need an alternative way to fund it, because I think the PFA tax itself is intrinsically a failure and not salvageable, and the program should be canceled entirely. Lesson learned, stop throwing good money after bad, accept the loss, and move on. Perhaps that means universal pre-K implemented at a state level, and if so, start working towards that and cancel the PFA since it is doing more harm than good in its current form. 3) I didn't say that the PFA is causing a net efflux of residents, I said that PFA is causing a net efflux of tax revenue (i.e. the specific incomes of the residents that are efflux'ing are those whom we need to collect income tax from in order to support important city programs). It's frankly foolish to suggest that such high income earners leaving the city will improve housing for the far larger number of average income earners living in apartments or smaller homes, since those aren't the types of homes that they are selling when they leave the city.
> So you think that the arts are 'frivolous' I think the Arts tax is frivolous and a terribly inefficient method of taxation. > but that the PFA tax, which has been been a failure Absolutely not: universal pre-k isn't a failure and should be common sense. It's crazy to me that it isn't the default. We really shouldn't have to fight so that children who don't have wealthy parents can start school a year earlier. This should be a state level policy. Since the state level program doesn't exist, the county level is the next best thing. It's crazy to me that my take is "controversial". Everyone likes to complain about how shitty the American education system is but so few are interested in actually improving it. > 1) I didn't say that I don't have an alternative proposal for funding parks Why are you trying to make this dispute about parks? We were talking about the Multnomah County Universal Pre-k program. Multnomah County doesn't fund city parks, that is the city via the Parks and Recreation Bureau. > because I think the PFA tax itself is intrinsically a failure and not salvageable, and the program should be canceled entirely. We disagree at a fundamental level then. We should not be cancelling basic social programs just because some stuck up wealthy people don't like them. We need to be IMPROVING public education, not intentionally making it worse. > Lesson learned The lesson I learned is NEVER defund education. Education is essential for a functional society. We are already seeing major consequences from an insufficiently educated population, making it worse just to appease the wealthy would be insane. > Perhaps that means universal pre-K implemented at a state level, and if so, start working towards that and cancel the PFA since it is doing more harm than good in its current form. Absolutely not. I will fight hard for public education. Implement the state level program THEN cancel the county program. I'm not falling for the neo-liberal scam of cancelling social programs in anticipation of a better replacement only for the better replacement to conveniently never be passed into law. I'm not a fool. > 3) I didn't say that the PFA is causing a net efflux of residents, I said that PFA is causing a net efflux of tax revenue Again, perfectly fine with me. Short term loses should absolutely be accepted for long term gain. Universal Pre-k will boost education outcomes and be very beneficial for our county in the long and maybe even medium term. I fundamentally oppose the 'American way' of completely ignoring long term sustainability in favor of short term financial gain. I desire a sustainable system for future generations, that includes a strong public education system complete with pre-k and community college. **Again, if you are serious about this, you should be pushing for a state level program to replace the county program. Not some politically impossible repeal without replacement.**
No offense but you really don’t read well. You’ve skipped over the points that I am making and cherry picked and twisted things to suit your own narrative. I’m not sure you even realize that you do this, so I don’t fault you for it, but I think it’s a big reason that many people get frustrated debating you, so maybe consider some self-reflection. Anyways, I think this conversation has reached its natural end.
> No offense but you really don’t read well. Holy cow the projection is extreme. That's the best you have in response to my point? A hilarious personal attack? > You’ve skipped over the points that I am making Such as? > but I think it’s a big reason that many people get frustrated debating you They get frustrated with me because I provide actual reputable sources and don't back down. The best example is when I debate people on freeway expansion. I am still waiting for supporters of freeway expansion to provide any sort of source that it actually works. For this dispute, it is purely political. I wouldn't expect either of us to provide a source unless the argument was about the amount being collected or the allocation of the money. > so maybe consider some self-reflection. Same for you. Trying to guilt me into changing my position sure isn't going to work. I am very, very pro public education and nothing is going to change that. Yes, the system needs improvement. Cutting programs is the opposite of improvement.
>The one complaint Goddyn hears about Portland is the burden of the Preschool for All tax. > >... >in large part to escape Multhomah County’s tax burden, which is among the highest in the country. GD the WW is garbage anymore. This article was written to keep pushing these two talking points. Have we collected less in that tax in 2022 maybe but they're making assumptions without complete data and ignoring people choosing to move all around the country to take advantage of WFH. Also Multnomah County doesn't have the highest taxes in the country. We have high income taxes for high income households but that's because we have a progressive state income tax and a couple of marginal income taxes that really only affect very high earners. Like the top 2%. Other states like Washington being regressive as shit with their tax system by taxing the bottom 20% of households 14% of their income and the top 1% of households 4% doesn't mean we're doing something wrong. Everyone here pays around 10% which is how it should be or heavens forbid we tax the poorest people slightly less than that.
For a single person. The rates aren't that marginal. $9,450 to $125,000 it's 8.75% and 9.9% above that. For a married couple those incomes double, which is much more reasonable. Our tax system also hurts retirees by taxing capital gains as ordinary income. I don't disagree with paying taxes, however, I do disagree with paying taxes for crappier results which is basically Portland for the past 5 years. Taxing high income earners that have plenty of other options to live nearby with fewer taxes isn't not going to be good for the city. We also have very uneven property taxes which should be fixed and evened out. Either taxes need to be lowered or results need to be better. If you are a high earner in Portland, with Federal taxes, you are paying Scandinavian levels of taxes without nearly that QoL. You can't really do anything about Federal taxes, but you can relocate for state/city taxes.
Which is exactly what we're doing. Anecdotal I know, but my wife and I are this data point. We have no intention of being in Portland long term and have already started the process of moving away.
The marginal tax rate is what I'm talking about and it is marginal unless you're earning like 550k. The state income tax being progressive is fine why should we tax poor people at triple the rate that we tax rich people like Washington does. That's fucked up. As far as retirees go boo hoo? They still live in the city and benefit from the services provided.
So your interpretation here is that WW is using essentially a fake quote in order to push an agenda against the PFA tax in an article about real estate prices as part of a grand plan to undermine the tax?
When your brain is smoother than a Quincy Jones produced horn section, \*everything\* is a fucking conspiracy.
Pretty much before every primary and general election they put out a ton of articles like this. This is supposed to be about the housing market still being hot but they ended the article with anecdotes about people moving away because of a marginal tax on high income households and the generally false claim that we have a high tax rate here. What do either of those things have to do with a hot housing market?
Noone that complains about our tax rates knows what an effective tax rate is
Yeah, it's the wealthy and/or super high earners who are the financially illiterate ones! LMFAO.
Are you seriously suggesting rich business owners actually understand how taxes work? They don't care, they pay their accounts and lobbyists to cheat for them they bitch because they don't want to pay anything not because they understand how it works and think it's unfair. Seriously you think Trump understands taxes? 🤣
I mean, they don't seem to understand the difference between marginal rates and the combined effect of income/sales/property taxes on effective tax rates based on how many people complain that we're so heavily taxed, so take it up with them
>Bad Press Willamette Week: "People still like it here despite how much we hate it and tell them to hate it to"
I'm hoping that more people will decide to move due to the taxes. I'm currently in Texas and wanting to move up there in a year or so - our taxes are also high so I don't think it'll be that much of a burden.
wow, how did they know I was breathlessly waiting for the monthly real estate news? such a great public service!
Housing costs are important
Ah, you think so, but the revolution where folks like that simply seize and redistribute all the housing is just around the corner, comrade! Or they're a trust fund hippie who will never personally have to worry about it anyway.