Real Estate Information Archive

Is an Accessory Dwelling Unit Right for You? Here’s What To Know

Are you having a hard time finding the right home in your budget? Or maybe you already own a home but could use some extra income or a designated space for aging loved ones. Either way, accessory dwelling units (ADUs) could be the smart solution you’ve been looking for in today’s market.

What Is an ADU?

According to Fannie Mae, an ADU is a small, separate living space that’s on the same lot as a single-family home. It must include its own areas for living, sleeping, cooking, and bathrooms independent of the main house. And they can take shape in a few different ways. Fannie Mae adds, an ADU can be:

• Within a main home, such as a basement apartment
• Attached to a main home, such as a living area over a garage
• Detached from the home entirely; it could even be a manufactured home

The Benefits of ADUs

ADUs are growing in popularity as more people discover why they’re so practical. In fact, a recent survey shows that 24% of agents say an ADU, such as a mother-in-law house, is one of the most desired features buyers are looking for right now.

The growing appeal makes sense. With rising costs all around you, an ADU can help supplement your income and ease some of the strain on your wallet. Whether you buy a home that has one already or you add one on, it gives you the option to rent out that portion of your home to help pay your mortgage.

Here are some of the other top benefits of ADUs, according to Freddie Mac and the AARP:

• Living Close, But Still Separate: You get the best of both worlds — more quality time together, plus privacy when you want it. If that sounds like a win, it might be worth looking for a home with an ADU or adding one to your home.
• Aging in Place: Similarly, ADUs allow older people to be close to loved ones who can help them if they need it as they age. It’s a sweet spot that offers independence and support from loved ones. For example, if your parents are getting older and you want them nearby, this could be a great option for you.
• Built-In Childcare: If your family’s living in the ADU, you may be able to use them for childcare, which can also be a big cost savings. Plus, it gives your kids more time with their grandparents.

It’s worth noting that since an ADU exists on a single-family lot as a secondary dwelling, it typically can’t be sold separately from the primary residence. And while that’s changing in some states, regulations vary by location. So, connect with a local real estate expert for the most up-to-date guidance.

Bottom Line

In today’s market, buying a home with an ADU or adding one to your current house could be worth considering. Just be sure to talk with a real estate agent who can explain local codes and regulations for this type of housing and what’s available in your area.

What’s your motivation for exploring ADUs?

Buying a Home May Help Shield You from Inflation

It feels like everything is getting more expensive these days. That’s because inflation has remained higher than normal for longer than expected – and that’s impacting the costs of goods, services, and more. And with rising costs all around you, you’re probably questioning: is now really the right time to buy a home?

Here’s the good news. Owning a home is actually one of the best ways to protect yourself from the rising costs that come with inflation.

A Fixed Mortgage Protects You from Rising Housing Costs

One of the key benefits of homeownership is that when you buy a home with a fixed-rate mortgage, your biggest monthly expense — your mortgage payment — stabilizes. Sure, your payment could rise slightly as your homeowner’s insurance and property taxes shift. But no matter what happens with inflation, your principal and interest payments won’t change.

That’s not the case if you rent. Rent tends to rise over time, and it usually goes up even faster than the rate of inflation. Just look at the data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) and the Census Bureau (see graph below):

So, while renters face higher costs year after year, homeowners with a fixed mortgage rate lock in their monthly payments, making it easier to budget no matter what happens with inflation.

Home Prices Typically Rise Faster Than Inflation

Another big reason homeownership is a great hedge against inflation is that home values tend to appreciate over time — often at a higher rate than inflation, according to data from the BEA and Fannie Mae (see graph below):

That makes real estate one of the strongest long-term investments during times of rising prices. While inflation can chip away at the value of cash savings, real estate typically holds or grows in value, allowing you to build wealth.

On the other hand, renting offers no protection against inflation. In fact, it does the opposite — when inflation drives up costs, landlords often pass those increases onto tenants through higher rents.

That means as a renter, you’re continually paying more without gaining any financial benefit. But as a homeowner, rising prices work in your favor by increasing the value of your home and growing your equity over time.

And with experts forecasting continued home price growth, that means you’re making an investment that usually grows in value and should outperform inflation in the years ahead.

In short, a fixed-rate mortgage protects your budget, and home price appreciation grows your net worth. That’s why homeownership is a strong hedge against inflation.

Bottom Line

Inflation can make everyday expenses unpredictable, but owning a home gives you stability. Unlike rent, your monthly mortgage payment stays pretty much the same over time. Plus, the value of your home is likely to increase after you buy.

How would having a fixed housing payment change the way you budget for the future?

Are You Asking Yourself These Questions About Selling Your House?

Some homeowners hesitate to sell because they’ve got unanswered questions that hold them back. But a lot of times their concerns are based on misconceptions, not facts. And if they’d just talk to an agent about it, they’d see these doubts aren’t necessarily a hurdle at all.

If uncertainty is keeping you from making a move, it’s time to get the real answers. The ones you deserve. And to take the pressure off, you don’t have to ask the questions, because here’s the data that answers them.

1. Is It Even a Good Idea To Move Right Now? 

If you own a home already, you may be tempted to wait because you don’t want to sell and take on a higher mortgage rate on your next house. But your move may be a lot more feasible than you think, and that’s because of how much your house has likely grown in value.

Think about it. Do you know anyone in your neighborhood who’s sold their house recently? If so, did you hear what it sold for? With how much home values have gone up in recent years, the number may surprise you. According to Lawrence Yun, Chief Economist at the National Association of Realtors (NAR), the typical homeowner has gained $147,000 in housing wealth in the last five years alone.

That’s significant – and when you sell, that can give you what you need to fund your next move.

2. Will I Be Able To Find a Home I Like? 

If this is on your mind, it’s probably because you remember just how hard it was to find a home over the past few years. But in today’s market, it isn’t as challenging.

Data from Realtor.com shows how much inventory has increased – it's up nearly 25% compared to this time last year (see graph below): 

Even though inventory is still below more normal pre-pandemic levels, it’s improved a lot in the past year. And the best part is, experts say it’ll grow another 10 to 15% this year. That means you have more options for your move – and the best chance in years to find a home you love.

3. Are Buyers Still Buying?

And last, if you’re worried no one’s buying with rates and prices where they are right now, here’s some perspective that can help. While there weren’t as many home sales last year as there’d be in a normal market, roughly 4.24 million homes still sold (not including new construction), according to the National Association of Realtors (NAR). And the expectation is that number will rise in 2025. But even if we only match how many homes sold last year, here’s what that looks like.

• 4.24 million homes ÷ 365 days in a year = 11,616 homes sell each day
• 11,616 homes ÷ 24 hours in a day = 484 homes sell per hour
• 484 homes ÷ 60 minutes = 8 homes sell every minute

Think about that. Just in the time it took you to read this, 8 homes sold. Let this reassure you – the market isn’t at a standstill. Every day, thousands of people buy, and they're looking for homes like yours.

Bottom Line

When you’re ready to walk through what’s on your mind, I have the answers you need. And in the meantime, tell me: what’s holding you back from making your move?

The 3 Biggest Mistakes Sellers Are Making Right Now

If you want to sell your house, having the right strategies and expectations is key. But some sellers haven’t adjusted to where the market is today. They’re not factoring in that there are more homes for sale or that buyers are being more selective with their budgets. And those sellers are making some costly mistakes.

Here’s a quick rundown of the 3 most common missteps sellers are making, and how partnering with an expert agent can help you avoid every single one of them.

1. Pricing the Home Too High

According to a survey by John Burns Real Estate Consulting (JBREC) and Keeping Current Matters (KCM), real estate agents agree the #1 thing sellers struggle with right now is setting the right price for their house (see graph below):

And more often than not, homeowners tend to overprice their listings. If you aren’t up to speed on what’s happening in your local market, you may give in to the temptation to price high so you can have as much wiggle room as possible to negotiate. You don’t want to do this.

Today’s buyers are more cautious due to higher rates and tight budgets, and a price that feels out of reach will scare them off. And if no one’s looking at your house, how’s it going to sell? This is exactly why more sellers are having to do price cuts.

To avoid this headache, trust your agent’s expertise from day 1. A great agent will be able to tell you what your neighbor’s house just sold for and how that impacts the value of your home.

2. Skipping Repairs

Another common mistake is trying to avoid doing work on your house. That leaky faucet or squeaky door might not bother you, but to buyers, small maintenance issues can be red flags. They may assume those little flaws are signs of bigger problems — and it could cost you when offers come in lower or buyers ask for concessions. As Investopedia says:

“Sellers who do not clean and stage their homes throw money down the drain. . . Failing to do these things can reduce your sales price and may also prevent you from getting a sale at all. If you haven’t attended to minor issues, such as a broken doorknob or dripping faucet, a potential buyer may wonder whether the house has larger, costlier issues that haven’t been addressed either.”

The solution? Work with your agent to prioritize anything you’ll need to tackle before the photographer comes in. These minor upgrades can pay off big when it’s time to sell.

3. Refusing To Negotiate

Buyers today are feeling the pinch of high home prices and mortgage rates. With affordability that tight, they may come in with an offer that’s lower than you want to see. Don’t take it personally. Instead, focus on the end goal: selling your house. Your agent can help you negotiate confidently without letting emotions cloud your judgment.

At the same time, with more homes on the market, buyers have options — and with that comes more negotiating power. They may ask for repairs, closing cost assistance, or other concessions. Be prepared to have these conversations. Again, lean on your agent to guide you. Sometimes a small compromise can seal the deal without derailing your bottom line. As U.S. News Real Estate explains:

“If you’ve received an offer for your house that isn’t quite what you’d hoped it would be, expect to negotiate . . . the only way to come to a successful deal is to make sure the buyer also feels like he or she benefits . . . consider offering to cover some of the buyer’s closing costs or agree to a credit for a minor repair the inspector found.”

The Biggest Mistake of All? Not Using a Real Estate Agent

Notice anything? For each of these mistakes, partnering with an agent helps prevent them from happening in the first place. That makes trying to sell your house without an agent’s help the biggest mistake of all.

Bottom Line

Avoid these common mistakes by starting with the right plan — and the right agent. Let’s connect so you don’t fall into any of these traps.

Buyer Bright Spot: There Are More Homes on the Market

The past few years have been challenging for homebuyers, especially with higher home prices and mortgage rates. And if you’re trying to buy a home, it’s easy to worry you won’t be able to find something in your budget.

But here’s what you need to know. The number of homes for sale has grown a whole lot lately and that’s true for both existing (previously lived-in) and newly built homes. Here’s a look at those two bright spots for buyers right now and why they may make it a bit easier to find the home you’re been looking for.

1. There Are 22% More Existing Homes for Sale

Data from Realtor.com says the number of existing homes for sale improved by an impressive 22% in 2024. And experts say your pool of options is expected to get even better this year. Forecasts show inventory is projected to grow another 11-15% by the end of this year (see graph below):

Here’s why this is so good for your search. If you haven’t seen a house with all the features you need, just know that, as the number of homes for sale grows, you’ll have more options to choose from. That means a better chance of finding a home that checks all your boxes. As Ralph McLaughlin, Senior Economist at Realtor.com, says:

“It could be a particularly good time to get out into the market . . . you're going to have more choice. And that's not something that buyers have really had much over the past several years.”

2. There Are More Newly Built Homes on the Market

According to data from the Census and the National Association of Realtors (NAR), 31.1%, or roughly 1 in 3, homes on the market right now are newly built homes. That’s more than the norm (see charts below). But don't worry, that's not because builders are overdoing it – it’s just that they’re trying to catch up after years of underbuilding.

And the best part is, since builders have been focusing on smaller homes with lower price points, you may actually find out new builds are less expensive than you’d expect. So, while a lot of people write off new construction because it’s easy to assume the costs are way higher, lately, that price gap isn’t as big as you’d think. As CNET says:

“If you live in an area where there's a lot of new construction happening . . . you might be able to purchase a new house for a price similar to or even less than a pre-owned one.”

If you haven’t been able to find a home that’s in your budget, it’s time to ask your agent about new builds. If you don’t, you may have been cutting your pool of options by about a third.

Bottom Line

More choices could be the key to unlocking your homebuying goals in 2025. Reach out if you want to see what’s available in and around our area.

What features are you looking for in your next home? Let me know and I’ll put together a list of homes you’d love.

This is a summary of the history of the Government Camp-Cooper Spur land exchange in a two part story written by Nathan Wilson of the Columbia Gorge News with their permission to reprint. 

This is the first of a two-part series on the history, changing terms and dysfunctionality of the Government Camp-Cooper Spur land exchange. Part II will run in next Wednesday’s edition.

Mt. Hood — Sprawling cities confined by urban growth boundaries. Protection for critical, endemic farmland and open space. Broad rights of public participation in land use decisions. How Oregon has managed its growth since statehood stands as an outlier.

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, Gov. Tom McCall, Sen. Hector Macpherson and many others sought to strike a balance between conservation and development — to encourage compact, efficient growth while preserving Oregon’s character. With the passage of Senate Bill 100 in 1973, they largely succeeded. Robust metropolises border — but don’t overreach into — fertile valleys and forests.

 

Those successes, however, didn’t come without challenges, and land use conflicts continued. Locally, the United States Forest Service, Mt. Hood Meadows, the board of county commissioners and conservation group Thrive Hood River have spent over two decades in a cycle of failed agreements, muddled bureaucracy and lawsuits over the north side of our famed mountain.

The entire dispute revolves around 770 acres of land at Cooper Spur owned by Meadows. Since opening in 1968, Meadows has made two attempts to construct a destination resort at Cooper Spur, and Thrive, formerly the Hood River Valley Residents Committee (HRVRC), coalesced in part to oppose those bids.

“It’s really about the long-term survival of natural lands in the Hood River Valley for future generations,” said Mike McCarthy, a Thrive Board member and orchardist near Meadow’s property.

But in 2001, Meadows purchased the Inn at Cooper Spur and the Cooper Spur Ski Area, and in 2002, Hood River County exchanged 614 acres of forest it owned near Cooper Spur with 786 acres Meadows held. The newly acquired land made development ever more possible, so the two parties wrangled again.

“We respect Mount Hood, we respect the land and its natural resources, and we really have since day one. We’re all native Oregonians,” said Matthew Drake, the CEO of Meadows, during a presentation to Hood River’s Rotary Club last November. “We also expect to receive fair value for our assets.”

Much has happened since 2002, oftentimes obscure and occurring behind closed doors. This story will walk through part of the Government Camp-Cooper Spur land exchange, including its early history and a promising deal that has since changed, but remains sought after.

The first land swap

Hood River County pursued the original trade to consolidate county-owned forests and gain access to premium timber. Commissioners held the first public hearing on Aug. 6, 2001, and a critical sticking point was the Crystal Spring watershed, which runs directly through Cooper Spur and provides drinking water to about 6,000 county residents.

According to Oregon Revised Statute 275.335, counties may exchange land when “such exchange is for equal value and is in the best interest of the county.” With the county’s land appraised at $1.3 million and Meadows’ holdings valued at $2.3 million, commissioners satisfied the equal value clause by paying just over $1 million to Meadows, making up the difference. But HRVRC claimed the deal wasn’t in the public’s best interest.

“While we are terribly concerned about the potential for development in this area, even more offensive to us and to the taxpayers of Hood River County is the transfer of public funds to pay a private developer for land that has been illegally estimated at a fraction of its fair value,” said McCarthy in a 2002 interview.

Though the county considered land and timber value when appraising the parcels, HRVRC argued they also must account for commercial value. At the time, developable property nearby was selling for $40,000 per quarter acre, but the county slated its own land at $328 per acre.

“The formula for appraisals has to be based on the land’s highest and best use under current zoning, the law doesn’t allow for speculation,” said Will Carey, then county land use attorney, in response to McCarthy. “If you try to go outside that boundary, you’re acting on pure conjecture.”

Given that Meadows had publicly stated plans to build a 450-unit complex, golf course, amphitheater and other amenities at Cooper Spur, it was far from speculative for HRVRC. They also alleged the county failed to give adequate notice of the public hearing. Officials listed the hearing date in two editions of the Hood River News the week prior, but state law requires publication in two different media sources if a two-week notification period was not given.

 

As such, HRVRC and McCarthy filed an Amended Petition for Writ of Review to Hood River County’s Circuit Court on March 27, 2002, based largely on those arguments. Judge Donald Hull, now retired, dismissed the case in July, but Thrive successfully appealed Hull’s decision in June 2004. Put on hold after separate legislation, federal review and litigation, the case reignited in 2021.

Judge John Olson presided over the trial on Aug. 3, 2023, and issued his verdict a few months later on Nov. 14, rejecting the petitioners’ claims with one exception.

“I cannot discern from the record that the requisite underlying valuation reports were ever presented to the BOC [board of commissioners] for its review,” wrote Olson, clarifying he could only find that a summary of the reports was provided. “I will therefore enter a judgment remanding the case back to the BOC to allow it to review the underlying reports.”

Commissioners then simply had to reexamine the necessary documents and include them in the public record. As previously reported by Columbia Gorge News, commissioners did so and reaffirmed the original trade during an Oct. 21 meeting last year. But that’s just one small piece of the puzzle.

An idealistic compromise: the “clean sweep”

After Hull originally dismissed HRVRC’s case, the committee, McCarthy, the county and Meadows began mediation talks, clearly at a stalemate. As a private and confidential process, Columbia Gorge News does not know what was discussed in mediation, only that it occurred in good faith.

“If you agree to something and you all work on it, it’s a promise,” said McCarthy. “It’s like a sacred promise.”

And they did reach an agreement — the fabled “clean sweep” — in 2005. Under the settlement, Meadows would trade all 770 acres of its land at Cooper Spur for rights to develop 120 acres in Government Camp, effectively preserving the north side of Mount Hood. Another land exchange to resolve the original one.

Congress codified those terms in the Omnibus Public Lands Act of 2009, mandating the trade to occur no later than 16 months after the bill was passed. Upon completion, the exchange would also create the Crystal Springs Watershed Resource Management Unit, setting aside 2,700 acres as a protected riparian zone, and incorporate 1,710 more acres into the Mt. Hood Wilderness. Enter the United States Forest Service (USFS).

USFS owns the Government Camp land and is the agency responsible for carrying the trade out, but by 2015, nothing had been finalized. USFS was reportedly busy adjusting boundary lines, resolving title issues, configuring right-of-way easements and more during that time.

“I think the delay was caused by several things. Part of it was just turnover in staff,” said Heather Staten, the former executive director of HRVRC, now Thrive. “The Forest Service is also very process-oriented — there’s like 60 steps to a land trade.”

As a result, Thrive filed suit against USFS for “unreasonable delay” in the U.S. District Court of Oregon. Judge Anna Brown agreed with Thrive and required the agency to provide monthly progress updates. Sens. Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley, along with Reps. Earl Blumenauer and Greg Walden, also moved things along by passing the Mt. Hood Cooper Spur Land Exchange Clarification Act in 2018, with one section reading:

“In addition to or in lieu of monetary compensation, a lesser area of Federal land or non-Federal land may be conveyed if necessary to equalize appraised values of the exchange properties, without limitation, consistent with the requirements of this Act and subject to the approval of the Secretary and Mt. Hood Meadows.”

While the Omnibus Act laid out very specific terms — 770 acres at Cooper Spur for 120 acres in Government Camp — the Clarification Act provided more leeway “if necessary.” The section above, and that actionable language, is critical to remember as USFS got further into its formal decision process.

•••

Part II will focus on the last six years of the Government Camp-Cooper Spur land exchange, particularly why the deal collapsed and two pending court cases key to resolving it.

This is the second in a two-part series on the history, changing terms and dysfunctionality of the Government Camp-Cooper Spur land exchange.

MT. HOOD — Drive up Highway 35 and turn onto Cooper Spur Road. Atop a winding, slick climb sits the inn, Crooked Tree Tavern, several cabins and the Cooper Spur Ski Area — a small slice of Mount Hood’s shoulders, contested since the 1970s. A microcosm of the push and pull between profitable development that serves recreational interests and environmental sanctity.

The United States Forest Service (USFS), Mt. Hood Meadows, Hood River County’s Board of Commissioners and conservation group Thrive Hood River have long pursued conflicting visions for these 770 acres, still owned by Meadows. There have been tense public meetings and consequential votes. Lawsuits followed by mediation sessions and more lawsuits. Delays and federal intervention all fixated on the Government Camp-Cooper Spur land exchange.

Last week, Columbia Gorge News unpacked the exchange’s early history and the “clean sweep” agreement, where Meadows would trade all its Cooper Spur property for rights to develop 120 acres in Government Camp, which USFS owns. The story also explained how the Omnibus Public Lands Act of 2009 and the Mt. Hood Cooper Spur Land Exchange Clarification Act of 2018 fit in. 

Now for the more recent history, beginning after Thrive sued USFS in 2015 for unreasonably delaying the exchange and Congress passed the Clarification Act.

Disputed appraisals and changing terms

All land trades hinge on fair market appraisals, so USFS hired Richard Maloy from Alabama, who is certified in Oregon and works along the West Coast, to make those assessments. Maloy released his results in summer 2017, but Thrive and longtime partner Crag Law Center tapped Donald Palmer, another appraiser based in Portland, to evaluate his findings. Palmer identified such egregious errors that, after mediation, USFS ordered another round of appraisals, which came out in December 2019.

Like the previous round, Thrive again claimed that USFS grossly undervalued the land in Government Camp, which Maloy slated at around $5.7 million. Maloy used four comparable properties in West Salem, Camas, Vancouver and Ridgefield to land on the number, but Palmer found that Maloy failed to deduct unusable acres from two of the four properties, deflating the per acre value. He also violated basic principles of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, according to Palmer.

“Maloy confirmed only one of the sales presented with the broker ... Relying on the deed documents does not provide you the necessary details regarding the physical characteristics of the site and financial aspects of the transaction,” Palmer wrote in his report. “Without confirming the sales data, the final conclusion is flawed.”

USFS contends the report did not include all sales information that Maloy considered.

The comparable sales were also located in areas with a different character and market than Government Camp, among other issues. Using the lowest range of Palmer’s estimate, he valued the land in Government Camp at $8.3 million and Meadows’ Cooper Spur holdings at $7.2 million, which Maloy listed at $9.1 million.

“Both internal agency experts and independent consultants reviewed the appraisal reports,” said Heather Ibsen, USFS public affairs officer for the Mt. Hood National Forest. “In their multiple reviews, experts concluded that the appraisals met standards required by federal laws, regulations and policies.”

“I don’t feel like [USFS] has done much to get value for the public,” said Heather Staten, former executive director of Thrive who led the nonprofit from 2015 until late 2021. “Normally when you have a land trade, both sides are trying to get a high value for their property or get a fair value. The Forest Service is just interested in following steps.”

While Thrive and USFS still disagree on their validity, those appraisals informed USFS’s Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) on the Government Camp-Cooper Spur Land Exchange, an analysis of the proposed action and other alternatives, which was released in January 2021. Thrive objects to several aspects of the FEIS, but it generally advanced the clean sweep.

In February 2021, however, USFS released its Draft Record of Decision (ROD) under different terms: Meadows would retain 159 acres and ownership of the Cooper Spur Mountain Resort for rights to develop 67 acres in Government Camp, receiving only one parcel in the ski town instead of two as originally planned. While still operating the Cooper Spur Ski Area on a short-term extension, Meadows could seek the 40-year permit again, effectively leaving an open door for development on the north side.

“It’s at odds with what’s good for the community, what’s good for the mountain and the deal that they had previously struck,” said Staten. As laid out in the 2009 Omnibus Act, the deal would protect 2,701 acres of the Crystal Springs watershed and add 1,709 acres to Mt. Hood’s National Forest.

Dodged answers

So, what occurred between the FEIS and ROD? How did USFS decide to reduce the land exchanged in Government Camp from 120 acres to 67 acres — from two parcels to one?

On May 5, 2021, USFS held a meeting to hear objections to the ROD, and Jesse Buss, an attorney for Thrive, asked that question. No complete recording of the meeting exists, but three people affiliated with Thrive who attended the meeting gave similar accounts independently. 

Essentially, Thrive maintains that USFS said it was not an agency decision and promised to provide a more detailed explanation after consulting their notes. One week later, though, Thrive received an email from USFS saying they must file a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to obtain that information.

Meadows spokesman Greg Leo disagreed and claimed the opposite. “Meadows played no role in that whatsoever. It was really a Forest Service determination based on the Forest Service’s work and the appraisals by the Forest Service of both pieces of land,” he said. Ibsen confirmed Leo’s comments and referred to the 2018 Clarification Act, which authorized the agency to exchange less federal or non-federal land “without limitation,” but only if it’s “necessary.”

When USFS formally responded to Thrive’s ROD objections, however, there was a slight distinction: “The private lands not included in the proposed exchange is property that Mt. Hood Meadows, following the 2019 appraisals, did not offer to convey and which the Forest Service is not authorized to ‘take’ under the exchange legislation,” wrote USFS.

In short, Thrive believes that Meadows intentionally sought only one parcel in Government Camp, creating a larger difference in conflict with the equal value clause of land exchanges, allowing the company to retain some land at Cooper Spur. 

But the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 also played a role. According to FLPMA, exchanges involving federal land must be for equal value, and if payment is needed to make up the difference, it must not exceed 25% of the federal land value. Using Maloy’s appraisals, the clean sweep would violate FLPMA. Using Palmer’s wouldn’t.

FLPMA further directs the acting authority to reduce any payment “to as small an amount as possible.” In May 2022, USFS issued its Final ROD negating the clean sweep.

“I think Mt. Hood Meadows is operating like a profit-motivated company,” said Staten, who stepped down as Thrive’s executive director just prior to the Final ROD. “They saw an opportunity to have their cake and eat it too.”

 

When asked about development at Cooper Spur, Leo said he couldn’t provide a specific answer until the exchange was completed, but affirmed any building would be consistent with Meadows’ core values of respecting Mount Hood and the environment.

Through FOIA requests, Thrive obtained a version of Meadows’ conceptual plans for the Cooper Spur Ski Area and the Cooper Spur Mountain Resort, created in 2017 and 2018, respectively. The ski area would grow from 50 to 296 acres, extend to the resort, include a new quad chairlift and have the capacity to park 775 cars. For the resort, Meadows considered adding an outdoor commercial spa, banquet hall, 83 camping areas and a 7,500-square-foot recreation area.

“It’s not beyond the limits of Mt. Hood Meadows to get a bill passed in the legislature,” said local orchardist Mike McCarthy. “They have worked over the years with the county and also with the state to get bills passed that allow them to have destination resorts.” McCarthy’s mother helped form Thrive and his family has owned land near Cooper Spur for generations.

Meadows’ Cooper Spur land is zoned Forest (F-1), a resource area primarily for timber harvesting while providing opportunities for agriculture, recreation and other uses. In 2001, Hood River County Commissioners wrote that destination resorts “should be pursued vigorously” in a related resolution and decided to allow the complexes as a conditional use later that year. The current zoning ordinance, amended in 2015, now prohibits destination resorts in F-1 Zones.

Tying up loose ends

With the final decision in place, the Government Camp-Cooper Spur land exchange is nearly complete, but three court cases remain unresolved: one in Hood River County’s Circuit Court, another in the Court of Appeals in Salem and a third in Portland’s U.S. District Court. The trade will not move forward until those cases are closed.

The circuit court case, as Columbia Gorge News explained in last week’s edition, centers on the first land swap made in 2002, when Hood River County exchanged 614 acres of forest it owned near Cooper Spur with 786 acres Meadows held, leading to the entire dispute.

By accounting for land and timber value, but not commercial value that would come if Meadows built a destination resort at Cooper Spur, Thrive claims that exchange conflicts with Oregon Revised Statute 275.335 because the exchange wasn’t for equal value and the public never got a chance to challenge appraisals the county obtained.

Judge John Olson, serving in Hood River’s Circuit Court, denied most of Thrive’s claims in November 2023, but remanded the case back to county commissioners because it wasn’t clear they had actually reviewed the appraisals. After appealing Olson’s decision, Thrive, Meadows and the county began a mediation program administered by Oregon’s Court of Appeals in Salem, which will finish Feb. 20 barring another extension.

Commissioners reaffirmed the original land exchange last October, but Olson has yet to issue his supplemental judgment and will hold a hearing on Feb. 5. Beyond public interest arguments and equal value arguments, Thrive will also assert commissioners failed to adequately consult the public by not allowing comments during the meeting.

“It was a very narrow scope, the record was closed and taking public testimony would basically reopen the record, which was not advised,” said Commissioner Ed Weathers. He assured that Olson gave a very clear order and that the board followed it per the county’s legal counsel.

In the U.S. District Court, Thrive, local grower Mike McCarthy, Oregon Wild, the Sierra Club and other conservation groups argue their “aesthetic, recreational, scientific and spiritual interests” will be “adversely affected and irreparably injured” if USFS implements the exchange as written. In their view, USFS not only violated the 2005 settlement agreement, 2009 Omnibus Act and 2018 Clarification Act, but also the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

NEPA offers direction on how federal agencies should evaluate the environmental impacts of proposed actions, and Thrive contends that USFS failed to consider an adequate range of alternatives, a NEPA requirement. For one, USFS didn’t declare which parcels of land would be exchanged in its FEIS, obscuring specific ecological consequences.

“The final mix of the Federal parcels and non-Federal parcels to be exchanged ... will be determined in the final Record of Decision,” wrote USFS.

Even with FLPMA stipulations, specifically the 25% rule, Thrive provided several options that would convey more land than USFS offered. The agency also failed to include any appraisal information in its FEIS, which the group says is critical to proving the necessity of exchanging less land as required by the 2018 Clarification Act. For these reasons and others, Thrive maintains that the FEIS “serves only to justify a decision already made.”

Ultimately, Thrive and USFS fundamentally disagree on the intent and language of the Omnibus and Clarification acts. While Thrive believes the acts mandate USFS to maximize the land exchanged, USFS maintains the Clarification Act “expressly allows” the parties to not undertake a clean sweep and exchange less land “without limitation,” overruling the good faith settlement made in 2005 and the specific provisions of the 2009 Omnibus Act.

Magistrate Judge Jeffrey Armistead will make the final decision in the district court, subject to review by an Article III judge. But that can't happen until the merits of the case are briefed and argued via a process called summary judgment. Briefing, however, is paused until USFS compiles a privilege log, a document that lists and describes withheld materials USFS considers “privileged” information.

The other parties and Armistead will review the privilege log to determine if additional, withheld materials must be added to the official case record. Thrive, USFS and Meadows have until Jan. 31 to submit a schedule for releasing the log, any related challenges and subsequent briefing on the merits. With arguments likely coming later this year, there is no timeline for Armistead’s decision.

A complicated relationship

In many ways, the Government Camp-Cooper Spur land exchange is like a divorce: Relationships eroded with time, third parties introduced more complications and everything eventually ended up in court. Meadows, USFS and Thrive simply can’t agree on how to split up the north side of Mount Hood, and both sides have different motivations.

“One of the narratives out there is we’re just unreasonable, we’re just crazy and we’re just pursuing this 20-year-old litigation out of a vendetta,” said McCarthy, a longtime Thrive member who owns land near Cooper Spur. “Well, we’ve proposed extremely generous compromise solutions just to get this done, and [Meadows] won’t engage.”

“That allegation is kind of disingenuous. Thrive has, multiple times, said that we should be driven out of Hood River County,” Leo, the spokesman for Meadows, responded. “We have tried to work with Thrive and similarly feel that we’ve been rebuffed when we’ve reached out.”

Looking back to 2005, Leo said Meadows supported the clean sweep agreement, but as USFS initiated the exchange, they came to understand that FLPMA requirements made some of the original terms moot. In his view, conflicts with FLPMA instigated the 2018 Clarification Act, which allowed USFS to exchange less land with proof that it was necessary.

“The bipartisan Clarification Act aimed to resolve the longstanding land dispute on Mount Hood so it wasn’t an either/or solution. Instead, it sought a win for both wilderness protections and responsible development that protected this natural treasure,” said Hank Stern, a spokesman for Sen. Ron Wyden.

Thrive no longer believes they’ll achieve the clean sweep, but the deal will still protect 2,701 acres of the Crystal Springs watershed and add 1,709 acres to Mt. Hood’s National Forest. Even more, the property Meadows will retain at Cooper Spur technically sits outside of the watershed, which provides to about 6,000 county residents. The company also plans to construct employee housing on the land in Government Camp. “Many generations of young people have come to the mountain to work and enjoy the mountain lifestyle, but also learn how to work in the hospitality business,” said Leo. “We bring, we think, economic benefits to all the people in Hood River County through having a viable tourism business.”

According to Greg Pack, the president and general manager of Meadows, the company employs around 120 people year-round, but that swells to about 1,200 during the winter months.

To make the most of Mount Hood, people need places to eat, rest and gather, which Thrive acknowledges. They also hope Meadows continues to operate the Cooper Spur Ski Area. Thrive just doesn’t want to see a massive expansion.

“The north side of the mountain is a really special place — it’s the place people go for backcountry, undeveloped recreation,” said Staten. “The community has spoken again and again that they want to keep the north side of Mount Hood special and a place for wilderness, quiet contemplation and not highly developed.”

Thus, as it has for so long, the Government Camp-Cooper Spur land exchange continues. Environmentalists in the pursuit of quaintness on one side. Economic and recreational interests on the other. A dispute that embodies the American West, the ball is in the courts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• Facebook
• Twitter
• Email
• Print
• Copy article link
• Save
•  

 

 

3 Reasons To Buy a Home Before Spring

Let’s face it — buying a home can feel like a challenge with today’s mortgage rates. You might even be thinking, “Should I just wait until spring when more homes hit the market and rates might be lower?”

But here’s the thing, no one knows for sure where mortgage rates will go from here, and waiting could mean facing more competition, higher prices, and a lot more stress.

What if buying now — before the spring rush — might actually give you the upper hand? Here are three reasons why that just might be the case.

1. Less Competition from Other Buyers

The winter months tend to be quieter in the real estate market. Fewer people are actively looking for homes, which means you’ll likely face less competition when you make an offer. This makes the process feel less rushed and less stressful.

According to the National Association of Realtors (NAR), homes sit on the market longer in winter compared to spring and summer (see graph below):

Fewer buyers in the market means you’ll likely have more time to make thoughtful decisions. It also means you may have more negotiating power. According to the Alabama Association of Realtors:

“A significant benefit of buying a home in winter is the reduced competition. Because of the perceived benefits of spring, many buyers delay the start of their house hunt. As a result, you will find fewer people competing for the same properties during winter. Less demand can translate into more negotiating power as sellers may be more willing to entertain offers or agree to concessions to get a deal closed quickly.”

2. More Negotiating Power

With homes staying on the market longer, sellers may be more willing to negotiate. This can lead to better deals for you as a buyer, whether that means a lower price or added incentives, like sellers covering closing costs or making repairs. As Chen Zhao, an Economist at Redfin, points out:

“. . . buying during the off season means less competition from other buyers. That means potentially negotiating a better deal.”

Plus, when demand is lower, sellers often feel more pressure to work with serious buyers. This could give you an edge to negotiate terms that work best for your situation.

3. Lock in Today’s Prices Before They Rise

Historically, home prices tend to be at their lowest point in the winter months, too. According to data from NAR, home prices last year were at their lowest in January, February, and March — right before the spring buying season kicked in (see graph below):

This trend isn’t new — Bright MLS shows between 2010 and 2024, home prices in January and February were, on average, 15% lower than during the month of peak home prices (typically June). Buying in the off-season means you’re more likely to avoid paying the premium prices that come with the high demand of spring.

On top of that, home prices generally appreciate over time, meaning they tend to go up year after year. That means if you’re ready to buy and you can make it happen, you’re not only taking advantage of what might be the lowest prices of the year, but you’re also locking in today’s price before it increases in the future.

Bottom Line

While spring may seem like the obvious time to buy, moving before the peak season can give you significant advantages, like less competition, more negotiation power, and lower prices.

If you’re ready to explore your options, let’s connect.

Smaller Homes, Bigger Opportunities: The Homebuilder Trend Buyers Love

It’s no secret that affordability is tough with where mortgage rates and home prices are right now. And that may have you worried about how you’ll be able to buy a home. But, if you don’t need a ton of space, you may find you have more cost-effective options in an unexpected place: new home communities.

Builders Are Building Smaller Homes 

Since smaller homes typically come with smaller price tags, buyers have turned their attention to homes with less square footage — and builders have shifted their focus to capitalize on that demand. As U.S. News notes:

“The combination of higher home prices and mortgage rates has strained a lot of people's budgets. And that's something builders recognize. To this end, they may be leaning toward smaller spaces . . .That, in turn, can lead to savings for buyers.”

Data from the Census shows the overall builder trend toward smaller, single-family homes has been over the last couple of years (see graph below):

As the graph shows, the average size of a brand-new home has dropped from 2,309 square feet in Q3 2022 to 2,171 square feet in Q3 2024. That’s a difference of 138 square feet.

At the end of the day, builders want to build what they know will sell. And the number one thing homebuyers are looking for right now is less expensive options to help offset today’s affordability challenges. As Multi-Housing News notes:

“The growing trend toward smaller homes is evident. These homes are less expensive to build and more attainable for many middle-income families, meeting both housing needs and modern lifestyle preferences.”

The Benefits of These Brand-New Homes

So, if you’re having trouble finding a home in your budget, it might be worth exploring newly built homes with a smaller footprint.

Not to mention, since newly built homes come with brand new everything, they have fewer maintenance needs and some of the latest features available, like energy-efficient appliances and HVAC. That’ll help you save on repair costs and your monthly utility bills. Sounds like an all-around win.

Bottom Line

Today’s builders are focusing their efforts on smaller homes at lower price points. That could give you more opportunity to find something that fits your budget. If you're planning to buy soon, let’s connect to explore what's on the market in your area and get your homeownership goals over the finish line.