Clark County

Clark County, Idaho comes in with a median home price of $248,917 and year-over-year price growth of essentially zero, 0.06%. The cap rate and cash-flow figures in the data both return zero, which is itself informative: at current prices and the prevailing 6.85% rate, the numbers do not pencil to positive cash flow on a standard underwrite. The affordability index of 60 against a median household income of $53,500 suggests the local buyer pool is stretched but not extreme. With an overall score of 53 out of 100, a cash-flow score of 0, and an appreciation score of 51, Clark sits squarely in neither camp, offering no demonstrated cash-flow advantage and only middling appreciation prospects based on the flat price trend.

Given those scores, this market does not suit a cash-flow buyer at any conventional leverage level, and the flat price growth of 0.06% year-over-year gives an appreciation buyer little to act on either. The most plausible use case is a value-add or buy-and-hold operator with very specific local knowledge, someone who can identify individual assets priced below the $248,917 median, force equity through renovation, and either refinance or hold at a lower effective basis. An affordability index of 60 means some rental demand exists from residents who cannot purchase, but without rental rate data in this dataset, that demand cannot be sized. At the county's price point, which is the lowest among all five neighbors listed, there is at least a relative entry cost advantage, though that advantage is meaningless if rent levels do not support the carry.

No economic anchors or employer data were provided for Clark County. What the raw numbers do reflect is a population of 756 people, which is not a typo. This is one of the least populated counties in Idaho, ranking 14th out of 43 Idaho counties in the dataset and landing at the 30th percentile nationally across 1,000 counties scored. A market of fewer than 800 residents creates concentration risk that goes beyond what any single data point can capture: one tenant vacancy in a small portfolio represents a disproportionate share of county rental demand, and the pool of qualified replacement tenants is structurally thin. Investors accustomed to mid-size metros will need to recalibrate their assumptions about lease-up timelines and tenant turnover costs.

On carry costs, the tax and insurance picture is actually a tailwind. Idaho's state-average effective property tax rate of 0.69% is flagged as low, and at the $248,917 purchase price that translates to $1,718 in annual property tax and $473 in annual insurance, for a combined monthly carry of $183. That is a meaningful line-item advantage relative to higher-tax states and should show up clearly on any underwrite. The caveat is worth keeping: 0.69% is a state-average estimate from Tax Foundation 2024 data, and actual Clark County or township rates may differ, so pull the county assessor's current levy before finalizing your model. Even with that uncertainty, the direction of the signal is favorable, and low carrying costs are one of the few structural positives this market offers an investor trying to make the math work at a 6.85% rate.

The primary risks here are concentration and liquidity. A county of 756 people has an extremely limited resale market: when you want to exit, your buyer pool is nearly nonexistent locally, and you are dependent on out-of-area investors or second-home buyers to clear the position. There is no vacancy or regulatory data in this dataset to cite, but the demographic reality, a population this small in a rural Idaho county, means any adverse local event, a major employer leaving, a drought cycle affecting agriculture, a shift in seasonal patterns, can move the needle on demand in ways that simply do not occur in larger markets. Investors who need reliable liquidity within a five-year horizon should treat that illiquidity premium as a hard cost, not an abstract risk.

Compared to its neighbors, Clark's $248,917 median is the lowest by a meaningful margin: Clearwater County at $295,906 is the next cheapest, followed by Benewah at $325,411, Camas at $368,144, Payette at $397,852, and Franklin at $448,272. All five neighbors score between 52 and 54 overall, essentially identical to Clark's 53, so there is no quality-of-market differentiation to speak of. The only reason to choose Clark over any of these neighbors is price point, and that argument holds only if you have a specific asset or strategy that demands the lowest possible acquisition cost. If your thesis is appreciation or cash flow, the neighbors score no worse and offer meaningfully larger population bases with deeper tenant and buyer pools. Clark makes sense only for an investor with on-the-ground presence, a very low basis target, and the patience to manage an illiquid rural asset.