If you like RE market stats. Check this out.

[Chris Vasquez]

Here is a link to NAR's local market stats from there web site.
Scroll down the page and choose your market. Enjoy! http://www.realtor.org/research/subscription_data/localmarketreports

[Jon Holdman]

Case Shiller data.

Yes, it does include Portland.

NAR data is based on median home prices. Its a statistic, but its not a useful statistic for determining what the future value of a specific house might be.

Simple, stupid example. A developer builds a bunch of small houses and sells them for $50K. Media price is $50K. Ten years later, someone builds a bunch of big fancy houses and sells them for $200K. Median prices for the area is $200K. Are those little, 10 year old houses worth $200K? Not a chance. Its a fundamentally bogus statistic for anything other than the total number of sales.

Case Shiller OTOH, compares multiple sales of the same property. It gives, IMHO, a much better picture of the change in price of a specific house over time.

The NAR is an associate of Realtors with the agenda of making money for their members. They don't promote home ownership, they promote transactions. Buy, sell, move up, downsize.

The thing that really galls me, and sours me on their information is the idea that "a home is your biggest investment". And "you can own for cheaper than renting". "The Economist" has a long section is the March 3 edition on property. Their overall thesis is that property is [http://www.economist.com/node/18250385]the riskiest of all possible investments[/url]. This one came out last week, but is worth picking up a copy or reading it online.

To refute NAR's contention that spending as much as you can buying a home ("buy the most home you can afford") is a "good investment"