Editor's Note: First-time home buyer blues

Las Vegas has gotten itself into a bind, and nobody seems to know what to do about it.

It might seem like people move here so they can rock 'n' roll all night and party every day, but the truth is they come because it's cheap. Vegas is a place where a young couple can get menial jobs in the casinos and afford to buy a brand-new stucco palace with a mountain view. You just can't pull that off in most other cities, where service jobs pay minimum wage and home prices are through the roof.

At least that was why people moved here. Unfortunately, the word "affordable" can no longer be associated with Las Vegas.

Though you can't ignore the fact that other living costs are rising, from electricity and gasoline to property taxes and insurance, the main reason is housing. For a variety of reasons, home prices in Las Vegas have skyrocketed over the past year, pleasing middle-class equity hounds but making it difficult for those aforementioned nonskilled workers to see an advantage to settling here.

We're practically California now.

One has to wonder what effect ballooning home prices will have on the valley's growth rate. Las Vegas has expanded quickly and fairly steadily since the early 1940s, with particularly rampant migration over the past 15 years. The city's plentiful jobs and low cost of living have more than compensated for its harsh climate and middling (at best) quality of life.

If it's no longer cheap to live here, what do the thousands of service industry workers do? If they can't afford to buy a house, where do they put down roots? Of course, it's not just the service folks. Young professionals such as teachers and journalists, as well as moderate-income retirees, face the same dilemma. The Clark County School District spans the continent every year recruiting teachers, but starting pay here is dreadfully low. Recent reports indicate some teachers are taking the bait, only to find once they get here that it's not worth the trouble and hightail it back home.

The valley's answer, so far, is: condos. The first-time buyer once could pick out a new three-bedroom house with two-car garage and decent front and back yards in a tidy suburban subdivision. Now he's looking at a down payment and closing costs for a small glorified apartment with an assigned covered parking space, a community pool and a hefty association fee. Conversions are the big trend--clearing out old apartment complexes, laying new carpet, slapping on fresh paint and putting individual units up for sale. A few newly built condo complexes are marketing to the first-time buyer, but not many.

A hybrid of sorts are the Rancho Lake Condominiums across from Texas Station. The 300 units originally were going to be rental apartments, but when the real estate market changed so dramatically last year, the developer decided to go condo. No changes were made to the units in the transition.

I took a look at a few of the models this week. They are new--unsoiled by tenancy. But that's the highlight. There aren't many extras. The one-bedroom unit is about 750 square feet for $95,000. There's no porch or balcony, and little storage space. It's an apartment, plain and simple, but you have to sign on to a 30-year mortgage to live in it. Plus, you have to pay a homeowners association fee of $122 a month, which covers, among other things, a pool and clubhouse.

The Rancho Lake Condos seem like a pretty good deal, actually. An agent there said they are getting a lot of interest and have sold dozens of units. Ample appreciation is likely. But, he noted, not a single family with children has chosen to buy there. The three-bedroom model, totaling 1,100 square feet, starts at $144,000--which, by the way, is roughly what a person could pay for a small townhouse in Spanish Trail in the '80s.

Not surprisingly, "affordable housing" is starting to get some attention in Las Vegas. Realtors and politicians are concerned, but they don't really know what to do. The developers' solution is to free up yet more federal land to be auctioned off for subdivisions. The evidence is not real strong that this would actually decrease prices, though. By contrast, developers could be forced to set aside space for below-market-rate housing, or, as local architect Bob Fielden suggests, the Bureau of Land Management could designate certain parcels for "work force housing." But that degree of government regulation is not likely in Las Vegas, where "growth" and "management" are words rarely placed next to each other.

Here are two more realistic and desirable solutions (besides moving to Pahrump or Searchlight):

1. Build up, not out. The high-rises going up in and around the resort corridor seem like a step in the right direction, a logical antidote to sprawl and accompanying traffic congestion. But so far, all the high-rises are being built for wealthy people. When some are built for the rest of us, we might be on to something.

2. Reinvest in older neighborhoods. There are dozens of neighborhoods surrounding the city center that should receive renewed attention from home buyers (and city agencies). In the past, everybody wanted to move out to the valley's edges. The houses were newer and cheaper there, plus you didn't have to contend with so many urban problems. As a result, the city hollowed out, and many older neighborhoods suffered. But living on the outskirts is not a realistic option anymore for lots of people. It requires ample doses of grit, tolerance and idealism, but investing in older neighborhoods is an affordable and potentially satisfying option for many families.

--GEOFF SCHUMACHER