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. I always giggle when I read comments from people complaining that a market is "too saturated" with one thing or another. What does that even mean? If someone is able to open and sustain a new business, whether you think there is room enough for them or not, more power to them. Personally, I love visiting as many of the new local breweries as possible. You do realize that most of these establishments include a dining component and therefore are pretty similar to restaurants, right? When was the last time I heard someone say "You know, I think we have too many locally owned restaurants"? Um, never...

  2. It's good to hear that the festival is continuing to move forward beyond some of the narrow views that seemed to characterize the festival and that I and others had to deal with during our time there.

  3. Corner Bakery announced in March that it had signed agreements to open its first restaurants in Indianapolis by the end of the year. I have not heard anything since but will do some checking.

  4. "The project still is awaiting approval of a waiver filed with the Federal Aviation Administration that would authorize the use of the land for revenue-producing and non-aeronautical purposes." I wonder if the airport will still try to keep from paying taxes on these land tracts, even though they are designated as "non aeronatical?"

  5. How is this frivolous? All they are asking for is medical screenings to test the effects of their exposure. Sounds like the most reasonable lawsuit I've read about in a while. "may not have commited it" which is probably why they're suing to find out the truth. Otherwise they could just ask Walmart, were you negligent? No? OK, thanks for being honest.

ADVERTISEMENT