IBJNews

Home sales pick up for second straight month

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Home-sale agreements in the nine-county Indianapolis area rose 16 percent in June compared with the same month a year ago, marking the second straight month of year-over-year increases after 14 months of declining sales.

Sales agreements climbed to 1,967 last month, up from 1,694 in June 2010, according to a report released Tuesday by F.C. Tucker Co.

The back-to-back increases were the first year-over-year rises in home-sale agreements since April 2010, when potential homebuyers rushed to sign contracts prior to the expiration of a generous federal tax credit. The special credit provided up to $8,000 for first-time homebuyers and $6,500 for some repeat buyers.

Sales fell dramatically last year after the tax credit ended, depressing residential real estate transactions for several months afterward.

While much higher than a year ago, June’s sales were 14 percent below what they were in the same month of 2009.

Year-to-date sales agreements are down 9 percent compared to the same period of 2010.

Marion County saw a 13-percent rise in June sales agreements from a year ago, from 781 to 886. Hamilton County deals rose 23 percent, from 328 to 402. Madison County saw a 33-percent increase, from 83 to 110.

Available homes for sale in the nine-county region dropped 7.5 percent in June, with 15,722 homes on the market. Marion County’s inventory dropped 11.5 percent.

Year-to-date sales prices are up 0.5 percent in 2010, from $147,257 to $148,030.

So far this year, sales agreements have been reached on 62 homes in the area priced at $500,000 or more.


 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT