House prices in and around Eugene Oregon are..

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: DT4K

Originally posted by: Brutuskend

Originally posted by: RossMAN
What's your budget?

What cities (list them all) and zip codes are you considering?

What's the minimum sq footage you would like?

Maybe 80K

Any towns within reasonable driving distance. Junction City. Coburg. Creswell. Harrisburg. Springfield. Veneta.

Don't really care what size, two bedrooms would be nice, and a garage and or shed. Must have it's own land!

You have got to be kidding me right?
You couldn't find a decent house in Eugene for 80k even 10 years ago.
There are very few places in the entire US that you can buy decent houses for 80k.
Eugene is much less expensive than a lot of other areas on the west coast.
My house in the Medford area would sell for 200 - 225k. Granted, it's a new house, but it's 3 bdrm 2 bath 1480 sq. ft.

the bolded statement is FAR from true. The majority of the population may not be able to get a decent house for 80k, but that's because the majority of the population lives in urban, and growing communities. There have been quite a few real estate threads where others have pointed to their areas as having relatively cheap housing. Unfortunately, for those of us in cheap housing areas, we generally give up something in return... higher salaries for example.

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: DT4K

Originally posted by: Brutuskend

Originally posted by: RossMAN
What's your budget?

What cities (list them all) and zip codes are you considering?

What's the minimum sq footage you would like?

Maybe 80K

Any towns within reasonable driving distance. Junction City. Coburg. Creswell. Harrisburg. Springfield. Veneta.

Don't really care what size, two bedrooms would be nice, and a garage and or shed. Must have it's own land!

You have got to be kidding me right?
You couldn't find a decent house in Eugene for 80k even 10 years ago.
There are very few places in the entire US that you can buy decent houses for 80k.
Eugene is much less expensive than a lot of other areas on the west coast.
My house in the Medford area would sell for 200 - 225k. Granted, it's a new house, but it's 3 bdrm 2 bath 1480 sq. ft.

the bolded statement is FAR from true. The majority of the population may not be able to get a decent house for 80k, but that's because the majority of the population lives in urban, and growing communities. There have been quite a few real estate threads where others have pointed to their areas as having relatively cheap housing. Unfortunately, for those of us in cheap housing areas, we generally give up something in return... higher salaries for example.

If the majority of the population lives in urban and growing communities, then that is where the majority of the houses are and the majority of those houses are worth well over 80k. Depends on your definition of "very few places" I guess.

"The national median price for existing single family homes increased to $174,100 in March, 2004, a 7.4 percent increase from the previous year, and the average price rose to $222,800, an 8.6 percent rise, according to the National Association of Realtors (NAR)."

That tells me that there aren't too many decent 80k houses around.

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: Brutuskend

Originally posted by: DT4K

Originally posted by: Brutuskend

Originally posted by: RossMAN
What's your budget?

What cities (list them all) and zip codes are you considering?

What's the minimum sq footage you would like?

Maybe 80K

Any towns within reasonable driving distance. Junction City. Coburg. Creswell. Harrisburg. Springfield. Veneta.

Don't really care what size, two bedrooms would be nice, and a garage and or shed. Must have it's own land!

You have got to be kidding me right?
You couldn't find a decent house in Eugene for 80k even 10 years ago.
There are very few places in the entire US that you can buy decent houses for 80k.
Eugene is much less expensive than a lot of other areas on the west coast.
My house in the Medford area would sell for 200 - 225k. Granted, it's a new house, but it's 3 bdrm 2 bath 1480 sq. ft.

I wish I were.

I'm a poor Bicycle shop manager.

Sounds like you need a sugar momma.

 

[jpeyton]

Blame the university more than Californians. U of O has driven rent through the roof as well; my bro goes there.

 

If the majority of the population lives in urban and growing communities, then that is where the majority of the houses are and the majority of those houses are worth well over 80k. Depends on your definition of "very few places" I guess.

"The national median price for existing single family homes increased to $174,100 in March, 2004, a 7.4 percent increase from the previous year, and the average price rose to $222,800, an 8.6 percent rise, according to the National Association of Realtors (NAR)."

That tells me that there aren't too many decent 80k houses around.

The median prices are definatly skewed by the inflated markets in expensive urban areas. If you remove california, I'm betting thoes numbers would change.

 

[CPA]

5 bedroom, 3600+ sq ft, 4 car garage, extras everywhere, 95% brick on 1.5 acres for $347K in Katy, TX. (suburb of Houston).

Come down to Texas, Brutus, we'd love to have you.

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Blame the university more than Californians. U of O has driven rent through the roof as well; my bro goes there.

Has nothing to do with the university. Rents right around the campus area are more expensive than elsewhere, but that has nothing to do with house prices in the rest of the area.

It's all about supply and demand. Lots of people love Eugene and the land use laws are very restrictive. High demand and relatively low supply.

 

[sygyzy]

Originally posted by: Brutuskend

Originally posted by: beer
Move to Texas then!

Maybe I should...

Here's an example...:roll: And THIS is in Springtucky!

What a bargain! Too bad it's an ugly house

 

[UDT89]

im my neighborhood on long island, you cant find a 3BR home for under $350.

 

[rh71]

Originally posted by: UDT89
im my neighborhood on long island, you cant find a 3BR home for under $350.

That's what we paid for a 3-bedroom... in 2002. It's now $400k ... the house across the street sold last month (was only on the market for a month) for that much and they have a lot of work ahead of them. Check out domainia.com.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Brutuskend
Insane !!!

Thanks Californians .

GO HOME !!!!!!!!!


I have lived here since 1976 and have finally decided to buy a home.

GOOD LUCK to me says I after looking at whats on the market in my price range.

I bet I could buy a 5 bedroom house in Texas for what a damn MOBILE HOME sells for here! (Plus you get to pay LOT RENT. Not that I WANT a Mobile home... )

Yeah but then you'd have to live in Texas!

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: SampSon

If the majority of the population lives in urban and growing communities, then that is where the majority of the houses are and the majority of those houses are worth well over 80k. Depends on your definition of "very few places" I guess.

"The national median price for existing single family homes increased to $174,100 in March, 2004, a 7.4 percent increase from the previous year, and the average price rose to $222,800, an 8.6 percent rise, according to the National Association of Realtors (NAR)."

That tells me that there aren't too many decent 80k houses around.

The median prices are definatly skewed by the inflated markets in expensive urban areas. If you remove california, I'm betting thoes numbers would change.

Sure, and if you remove the inexpensive areas in the middle of nowhere with deflated markets, the numbers would change in the other direction. But then you are no longer reflecting reality.
I think the median value just in Oregon is also right around 170k though, so it's pretty much in the middle between places like Tennessee and places like California.

The point is just that when half of all the home sales in this country were for over 174k, you can't expect nice 80k houses to be plentiful.

 

[Stark]

hey, i lived my formative years in OC in socal, and I can't afford to live their anymore. I just heard that the average price for a home in SD is 600k.

So blame GWB for not doing something about all the "undocumented" residents coming across the border and all the other people from every corner of the country and world infesting southern cal and driving housing prices through the roof.

As for me, I'm about ready to cash out and move somewhere else. I hear Colorado is nice and has great mountain biking. I'm going to go check it out next week.

 

[Linflas]

That 80K home you linked would go for 250-300K 40 miles outside DC.

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: Stark
hey, i lived my formative years in OC in socal, and I can't afford to live their anymore. I just heard that the average price for a home in SD is 600k.

So blame GWB for not doing something about all the "undocumented" residents coming across the border and all the other people from every corner of the country and world infesting southern cal and driving housing prices through the roof.

As for me, I'm about ready to cash out and move somewhere else. I hear Colorado is nice and has great mountain biking. I'm going to go check it out next week.

WTF?
Could you explain to me how poor illegals are buying houses for 600k or causing house prices to go to 600k ??????

The reason SoCal is so expensive now is that people in the bay area started cashing out and moving south.

 

Originally posted by: DT4K

Originally posted by: SampSon

If the majority of the population lives in urban and growing communities, then that is where the majority of the houses are and the majority of those houses are worth well over 80k. Depends on your definition of "very few places" I guess.

"The national median price for existing single family homes increased to $174,100 in March, 2004, a 7.4 percent increase from the previous year, and the average price rose to $222,800, an 8.6 percent rise, according to the National Association of Realtors (NAR)."

That tells me that there aren't too many decent 80k houses around.

The median prices are definatly skewed by the inflated markets in expensive urban areas. If you remove california, I'm betting thoes numbers would change.

Sure, and if you remove the inexpensive areas in the middle of nowhere with deflated markets, the numbers would change in the other direction. But then you are no longer reflecting reality.
I think the median value just in Oregon is also right around 170k though, so it's pretty much in the middle between places like Tennessee and places like California.

The point is just that when half of all the home sales in this country were for over 174k, you can't expect nice 80k houses to be plentiful.

I dunno, I work in RE and I see loads of nice houses for 80K or so. 222K for a national average is definatly inflated, but that is to be expected with the past couple years of exploding RE markets.
California's market in no way reflects reality though.

 

[OutHouse]

dude come to Colorado. you cant touch a fricken 20 year old single wide trailer for under 80K.

 

[CChaos]

Originally posted by: Brutuskend

Originally posted by: beer
Move to Texas then!

Maybe I should...

Here's an example...:roll: And THIS is in Springtucky!

That's a 20% down payment in these parts.

 

[Vic]

Eugene area home prices have been rising steadily for the last year or so, with a big kick earlier this year. Short of a nasty neighborhood in Springfield, you're gonna have to look outlying, like Junction City or Marcola. Or you could go hippie and find something out in Blachly. Avoid manufactured homes, even those de-titled as real property, as financing is becoming more difficult due to increasingly strict Fannie/Freddie guidelines on them.

 

[phreakah]

my parents paid 350 for their house in la palma, ca about 4 years ago and now it's worth 700.... double!

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: SampSon
I dunno, I work in RE and I see loads of nice houses for 80K or so. 222K for a national average is definatly inflated, but that is to be expected with the past couple years of exploding RE markets.
California's market in no way reflects reality though.

California's market is real, therefore it does reflect reality. The reality in california at least.
I'm not sure what you mean by inflated though. Those are real numbers that only mean what they mean. 222k IS the national average. 174k IS the national median. So what if there are some areas that are really expensive. There are also some areas that are really cheap.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: phreakah
my parents paid 350 for their house in la palma, ca about 4 years ago and now it's worth 700.... double!

And 2 years from now it will probably be worth $350k again. Such is the way of California real estate, which always rides up and down (last big dip in the early 90s), yet the idiot Californias always trick themselves into thinking that real estate can only go up, so they don't use common sense when buying.
As Sampson, an RE appraiser, pointed out, CA real estate reality does not represent reality for the rest of the country, and the rest of the country is pretty damned resentful when foolish Californians walk into their markets and run up all the property with their over-speculation.

 

[Entity]

Originally posted by: RossMAN
Doing a quick and dirty search on RMLS.com I found 24 houses in Lane County which are single family residences, 2 bedroom, 1 bathroom, costing $80,000 - $100,000

If you want OUTRAGEOUS house prices, come up here to Portland ...

Man, at least you don't live in Seattle.

 

Originally posted by: DT4K

Originally posted by: SampSon
I dunno, I work in RE and I see loads of nice houses for 80K or so. 222K for a national average is definatly inflated, but that is to be expected with the past couple years of exploding RE markets.
California's market in no way reflects reality though.

California's market is real, therefore it does reflect reality. The reality in california at least.
I'm not sure what you mean by inflated though. Those are real numbers that only mean what they mean. 222k IS the national average. 174k IS the national median. So what if there are some areas that are really expensive. There are also some areas that are really cheap.

Well because this is based solely off of MLS numbers. Typically only counting listed properties sold with a realtor and an arms length transaction. So many properties that are not sold through MLS do not get included in these numbers. So the national average is realistically lower than what just NAR reports.

The california market does not conform to any standard RE market rules. Even places like the hamptons, inner circle of boson and manhattan have more "realistic" and economically predictable markets than california. The appreciation rates in California are off the charts.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Brutuskend

Originally posted by: beer
Move to Texas then!

Maybe I should...

Here's an example...:roll: And THIS is in Springtucky!

LOL, that would be worth about 30K here on a good day.