The ongoing issue of finding housing in Montrose — and surrounding areas for that matter — has been well documented. Housing prices continue to climb and rental prices aren't low, either.
A latest report from the Colorado Association of Realtors revealed that single-family homes in Montrose County, for the month of February, had a median sales price of $350,000. That's an 18% increase from the same time last year.
And the inventory of homes for sale during the month? It was 85, a 56% drop from Feb. 2020.
Have you looked for a place to reside, or new place, here in Montrose County? What have you learned during your own housing or rental search?
The comments made below by Cally, Jim snd Arnold are quite welcome. I expect that a discussion on the topic of affordable and available housing in the Montrose community could generate a lot of interest. Well beyond those of us who have joined NABUR. Now that the vaccination rate is proceeding along at a steady pace in Colorado are there any plans to hold a community wide Forum on the topic of affordable and available housing?
@Neonila Martyniuk This is an idea I'll share with the team! We are developing plans to hold more community forums in the future.
Finding an affordable rental when I moved back to Montrose last spring was difficult. I am a single person without a family and unlike Fort Collins, there were very few one bedroom apartments or lofts in Montrose.
Rent here is cheap when you compare it to the minimum wage @ $12/hr. A couple both at minimum wage earns $48,000/yr. Rent should be 30% of your income so that translates to $1200/month. A house @ $350,000 equates to about $1500/month mortgage with 20% down, so each would have to earn only $15/hour. Quite affordable for Colorado. So no housing problem here. Aspen or Telluride is a different story.
While it is true that living in Telluride and Aspen is more expensive, the context of saying that there is no housing issue with your limited criteria is not always accurate to what a young person, with 50-100k of college debt, an entry level job, and being single may experience.
There is also the factor that there are a limited number of small houses or apartments in Montrose that are not reserved for income restricted or elderly.
It is also very hard for a single income household to save up 20% of $350,000 for a down payment, when they are only making minimum wage or even just a few dollars more. Assuming that all people looking for a house or place to rent are couples, that do not have children, could be considered a narrow viewpoint.
I think the real issue comes with the difficulty that the couple would face if they want to save for the down payment, like Cally said. $70,000 is a lot of money for a young couple trying to get their footing somewhere.
Depending on the employer, health insurance for the couple may come in around $400-500 per month. Let's assume the couple has one paid off vehicle and one vehicle under loan, if we assume good credit and an inexpensive vehicle, we can estimate a monthly payment of $250 and insurance for both vehicles around $300. Utilities around $65, electricity around $150, groceries around $350-400. Internet at $60, phones at $100. Clothing at $75,
If we assume standard taxes for the couple each making $15/hr, they'll pay about $7,000 in taxes for the year. Their net income will be around $55,400.
Assuming the lowest cost for the figures above, we're looking at $1,750 per month. This doesn't take in to account any entertainment, emergencies, retirement, savings, healthcare costs, etc. After all of that, the couple will have $16,400 leftover for the year.
It'll take them 4.5 years to save $70,000 if they never spend money on anything else. No movies, no eating out, no vacations. If we take a more realistic approach and assume they're normal people with normal lives and experiences, it'll take them 12-15 years to save up that down payment. A single emergency can take up a good chunk of their savings, rolling them back a year or two (or more).
There wouldn't be a chance for one of them to try and expand their education, since that will add a huge monetary and time expense for one of them at least. Not very realistic to push your timeframe back 4-6 years to get a degree, only to be offered only $20/hr.
All in all, I believe the poor job prospects and high housing cost make Montrose very inaccessible to young and middle-aged couples/families trying to make a start here.
@Ian Jameson Your detailed cost breakdown followed with a 'reality' assessment is appreciated !
@Ian Jameson Great breakdown, Ian. Considering almost all individuals likely have different situations and circumstances in everyday life, there are many monetary factors to consider, as you pointed out. Even starter homes are $300,000 right now, a rise from $270,000, a figure it was set at previously.
I also mentioned in my report how wages aren't keeping up with housing prices. And if you're single? It's an even tougher market and search. Families, too, have much to consider and financial commitments to juggle.
Absolutely correct, @Josue Perez . Trying to afford raising a family just blows everything else out of the water. Just your own childcare costs with food, clothing, furniture, healthcare (for you and baby) would make it much more difficult, not to mention if you need to use a daycare or babysitter, it's usually going to cost you more than you make at your job anyways. Definitely more than minimum wage, and probably more than $15/hr.
If you want a pet, you add yearly expenses. If you want to make improvements to your newly bought home, add expenses. If you need to maintain your home, add expenses. The 20% down payment for a new home is just the first hurdle in many if you're trying to make it.
I have not been looking. The tight housing market in Montrose is not unique to this area. This is a generalized problem in the west. The problem is not land available it’s the government who owns the land and won’t put it for sale. Second reason is the red tape to build. Now I am not saying we don’t need over site but we don’t need restrictive rules. Government usually add rules not take away any.
There is an answer. When government and private industry working together positive things can happen. It’s just not working here.
@Arnold Scott Your point makes me wonder — the state, through its Building Back Stronger series, has been listening to local representatives across the state about issues surrounding the communities and best ways to use the federal stimulus funds. Among the topics mentioned was the need for housing. Maybe state government, once federal funds are used as housing/utility will receive nearly $1 billion in resources, might continue the discussion on housing and extend an additional effort once funds are exhausted, especially if local leaders keep highlighting the need.