Coinciding with their 2006 home values report, Zillow also blogged about it.

Judging from their blog post, one thing Zillow understands well is that the data can’t explain everything – or WHO is impacted. Local resources/knowledge are necessary to paint a picture of why one region might have declining home prices, while another (read: NW) can continue to grow at 10%+.

One explanation, aside from general desirability for those who don’t mind a little winter rain: growth management. The NW, relative to most other regions in the country, especially relative to the Southeastern US, tends to push a controlled pattern of development in which city and county counselors, as well as the citizenry assert significant influence over new and existing development projects.

Does this mean that counselors should be responsible for also providing the public with adequate living wage housing for those who can’t afford to get into a starter home at $200k+? You bet. A single income mother with three children, unless she’s a lawyer, is unlikely to be in a position to buy a starter home in the Northwest.

I don’t accept that housing prices would decline if people who previously couldn’t buy a starter home, could find options in the $120-170k range. Those people would not have contributed to the housing boom in the first place, although by renting they apply pressure to the speculative and rental market in a way that might depress home prices initially. Free markets are great for many, but they are a numbers game, a zero sum game that doesn’t determine a person’s true value to society. Eugene should attempt to do more than just limit development for the privileged 60% (Friends of Eugene) who already own a home or are established here.

Popularity: 15% [?]