Post by Poor Richard on Dec 8, 2021 14:13:33 GMT -7
Housing Issues in Paradise Valley
Commentary and a Livingston Enterprise Article
Commentary and a Livingston Enterprise Article
Land prices have skyrocketed in Paradise Valley. A recent Livingston Enterprise article, shown below, discovered that roughly 33% of new housing in Paradise Valley were second homes. Homes built as vacation rentals were very popular too. Covid, remote work, a plentiful supply of land, and many other factors have helped to popularize Paradise Valley in the public mind. High demand for relatively limited land has driven up prices substantially. People who have owned land for decades are now millionaires and multi-millionaires on paper. When they sell they will be wealthier than they may have ever imagined. But young families are finding it difficult to earn enough to purchase land and build a house. Their income simply is not enough to cover the mortgage.
Second homeowners are a blessing for Glastonbury. By definition, they do not live here but own property and usually a nice home. They pay full assessments, infrequently use the roads, and generally take good care of their property. They are an even greater blessing for the county government. Their property and homes are highly valued and thus they pay far more than the average homeowner in property taxes. As part-time residents, they usually do not have children enrolled in public schools nor do regularly use many public services like road maintenance, trash collection, etc. About 40% of property tax funds go to K-12 schools. Non-resident homeowners are the proverbial geese that lay golden eggs.
Some people see "outsiders" as a problem. Outsiders drive up property values and bring their often liberal political values with them. They expect government services as they have in the city they reside in. Worse, they exhibit bad behavior by trying to change local government to the model they are more familiar with. And they drive up property prices. So what is to be done?
The Livingston Enterprise article examines Paradise Valley development and the problem of home ownership for first-time buyers. The solutions mentioned presume that government can solve the problem. Market-based solutions are not discussed. One solution could be for young couples to buy a few acres outside of the popular areas and park a mobile home on it. Their property will increase in value over time. Generally, so will the owner's income as their marketable skills grow. At some point, they can build a permanent home particularly if they have a growing family. If they decide to sell, chances are very good they will reap a tidy profit.
Second homeowners are a blessing for Glastonbury. By definition, they do not live here but own property and usually a nice home. They pay full assessments, infrequently use the roads, and generally take good care of their property. They are an even greater blessing for the county government. Their property and homes are highly valued and thus they pay far more than the average homeowner in property taxes. As part-time residents, they usually do not have children enrolled in public schools nor do regularly use many public services like road maintenance, trash collection, etc. About 40% of property tax funds go to K-12 schools. Non-resident homeowners are the proverbial geese that lay golden eggs.
Some people see "outsiders" as a problem. Outsiders drive up property values and bring their often liberal political values with them. They expect government services as they have in the city they reside in. Worse, they exhibit bad behavior by trying to change local government to the model they are more familiar with. And they drive up property prices. So what is to be done?
The Livingston Enterprise article examines Paradise Valley development and the problem of home ownership for first-time buyers. The solutions mentioned presume that government can solve the problem. Market-based solutions are not discussed. One solution could be for young couples to buy a few acres outside of the popular areas and park a mobile home on it. Their property will increase in value over time. Generally, so will the owner's income as their marketable skills grow. At some point, they can build a permanent home particularly if they have a growing family. If they decide to sell, chances are very good they will reap a tidy profit.
That seems to be a much better solution than building "low-income" apartments that in 30 years will become an eyesore and likely a crime ridden slum. The trust idea discussed in the article is also flawed. It would exempt land from the tax rolls but allow people to purchase any homes on the land. Property tax would be lost and that burden would be placed on the shoulders of existing landowners. Homeowners would not have a yard to call their own, park their vehicles in, raise animals, erect a playground, sow a garden, etc. That kind of home is like a condominium; you only own the four inside walls. When the building wears the residents move and another eyesore is created. Like low-income housing, trust housing is not conducive to building a healthy community. Instead, it is based on good intentions, which we all know, is what the road to hell is paved with.
The Livingston Enterprise reports:
"On the afternoon of Dec. 1, a few dozen community members gathered for a virtual meeting to learn more about community land trusts, and anyone familiar with virtual meetings would recognize the casual timbre ahead of the event.
People talk among themselves ahead of time, peek around fellow attendees’ rooms, followed by reminders to go on mute when the meeting begins. It’s much more casual than a typical in-person meeting, with no one sitting in places of distinction, no lectern for formal comment.
The casual energy of the virtual meeting belied the urgency of the situation the meeting was intended to address.
“In Park County, the workforce can’t afford to purchase homes,” said Austin Willis, outreach coordinator with Trust Montana, Inc. “And that’s a really scary prospect as we move forward.”
In Park County, there are 2,433 single-person households and only 1,469 available one-bedroom or studio apartments, according to the 2021 Park County Housing Needs Assessment. The report, a collaborative project of the Park County Community Foundation and the Human Resource Development Council of District IX, released last month detailed the scope of the local housing crisis. Nearly half of Park County
Nearly half of Park County households earn less than $50,000 per year, and 70% of renter households in the county are unable to afford the average market rent, the report found. The average renter in Park County makes $12.79 per hour and can sustainably pay $665 in rent each month. But the current average rent is closer to $1,565."
Read the full article here and view images.
The Livingston Enterprise reports:
"On the afternoon of Dec. 1, a few dozen community members gathered for a virtual meeting to learn more about community land trusts, and anyone familiar with virtual meetings would recognize the casual timbre ahead of the event.
People talk among themselves ahead of time, peek around fellow attendees’ rooms, followed by reminders to go on mute when the meeting begins. It’s much more casual than a typical in-person meeting, with no one sitting in places of distinction, no lectern for formal comment.
The casual energy of the virtual meeting belied the urgency of the situation the meeting was intended to address.
“In Park County, the workforce can’t afford to purchase homes,” said Austin Willis, outreach coordinator with Trust Montana, Inc. “And that’s a really scary prospect as we move forward.”
In Park County, there are 2,433 single-person households and only 1,469 available one-bedroom or studio apartments, according to the 2021 Park County Housing Needs Assessment. The report, a collaborative project of the Park County Community Foundation and the Human Resource Development Council of District IX, released last month detailed the scope of the local housing crisis. Nearly half of Park County
Nearly half of Park County households earn less than $50,000 per year, and 70% of renter households in the county are unable to afford the average market rent, the report found. The average renter in Park County makes $12.79 per hour and can sustainably pay $665 in rent each month. But the current average rent is closer to $1,565."
Read the full article here and view images.