IBJNews

Local home sales continue downward slide

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A rebound in existing home sales seems to be as elusive in 2011 as it was last year.

Home-sale agreements in the nine-county Indianapolis area fell 16.7 percent in February compared to the same month of 2010, according to a report released Friday by F.C. Tucker Co.

Sale agreements fell to 1,473 last month from 1,930 in February 2010. The decline marked the 10th consecutive month in which year-over-year sales slumped in the area. The area experienced three straight months of improving sales activity early last year thanks to generous federal tax incentives.

In Marion County, February sales agreements fell 26.1 percent compared with the previous year, from 934 to 690.

Pending sales plummeted 32.1 percent in February in Hamilton County, from 390 to 265, and dipped 13.6 percent in Hendricks County, from 162 to 140. Sales agreements dropped 23.1 percent in Johnson County, from 143 to 110.

The average sale price in the Indianapolis area in February was $139,019, up 1.8 percent from a year earlier, the report said.

Active listings dipped 3.6 percent, from 14,798 in February 2010 to 14,259 last month.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Honest reporting
    Thank you, IBJ, for straight forward analysis of the numbers. I am a member of MIBOR and am weary of the spin put on reality by my peers. It does not help and it's difficult to tease out the truth. Worse, it only serves to create seller envy and confusion.

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