Gilliam County

Gilliam County sits at a median home price of $240,694 with 8.85% year-over-year appreciation, which is the headline number here. The investment data returns zeros across cap rate, cash flow, and cash-on-cash return, which tells you something important: this is not a market where rental income covers carry costs in any conventional underwriting scenario. There is no price-to-rent ratio calculable from the provided data, and the scoring confirms it, with a cash flow score of 0 against an appreciation score of 83. At 78th percentile nationally and ranked first in Oregon out of 36 counties on overall score, Gilliam grades well as a market, but that grade is built almost entirely on price growth, not income production. An investor running a 20% down payment of $48,139 at a 6.85% rate is financing a $192,555 balance into a low-density rural county where the rental demand pool is thin by definition at a population of 1,983.

The appreciation score of 83 and 8.85% price growth make Gilliam a candidate for one type of buyer only: someone willing to accept minimal or negative cash flow in exchange for land and property value gains, and who can sustain the carry without rental income covering the gap. A cash-flow buyer has no business here, the scoring is explicit on that. A value-add operator faces the same problem, because even a renovated property in a county of under 2,000 people has a constrained tenant universe. The affordability index of 68 and median household income of $58,409 suggest local incomes are not out of step with prices at first glance, but the absence of any viable rent-to-price ratio in the data indicates the rental market is either extremely thin or non-functional at scale. This is a county for someone buying land or a primary residence that doubles as a long-term hold, not a landlord expecting monthly distributions.

No economic anchors or employer data are provided for Gilliam County, so the stability score of 50 stands without further explanation. A score of 50 on stability in a county this small suggests meaningful volatility risk, likely tied to population concentration and a narrow local economy typical of rural eastern Oregon. With 1,983 residents, any single employer exit, demographic shift, or infrastructure change has an outsized effect on both rental demand and property values. Investors used to urban or suburban diversification buffers will not find them here.

The tax and insurance picture is one of the few areas that does not work against you. At the Oregon state-average effective rate of 0.97%, which is flagged as normal and carries the honest caveat that actual county and township rates may differ, annual property tax on a $240,694 purchase runs roughly $2,335. Insurance at 0.19% adds $457 per year. Combined, monthly tax and insurance is $233, a relatively light fixed cost that at least does not compound the cash-flow problem. This is a tailwind compared to high-tax states, but in a market where cash flow is already scored at zero, it moves the needle less than it would elsewhere.

The primary risks here are concentration and demographic. A county of 1,983 people is, by definition, a single-asset-class bet on a specific geography. There is no rental market depth to absorb vacancy, no employment diversity data provided to support demand assumptions, and limited exit liquidity if appreciation reverses. Regulatory risk is not flagged in the data, but rural Oregon counties generally carry fewer tenant-protection mandates than Portland-area markets, which is a mild structural positive for landlords if a rental operation ever becomes viable. The stability score of 50 is the number to internalize before committing capital.

Against its neighbors, Gilliam's $240,694 median is the most accessible entry point among the five counties listed, cheaper than Sherman ($271,963), Grant ($277,438), Malheur ($314,413), and Union ($320,525), while matching or beating Lake County ($194,080) only on price appreciation story. Union County is the only neighbor with rent data available, showing a rent-to-price ratio of 5.68% and a median rent of $1,516, against a median price of $320,525 and an overall score of 62. On a pure income-production basis, Union County looks more actionable for a cash-flow investor despite its higher price, because at least a rent figure exists and the ratio is calculable. Gilliam makes sense over its neighbors only when the thesis is pure appreciation on lower absolute capital outlay, the investor can self-finance or absorb negative carry, and the holding period is long enough for 8.85% annual price gains to compound into a meaningful equity position. If income is any part of the return requirement, Union or Lake County warrant a harder look first.