By Scott Sloan - ssloan@herald-leader.com
The Lexington-Bluegrass Association of Realtors said home sales in and around Lexington grew in the third quarter, with September particularly strong. Residential sales rose 13 percent in Lexington and 7 percent in the region as a whole.
The growth for the full quarter, although lower, was still growth, which has been tough to come by as the real estate market suffered during the recession.
The number of residential real estate sales that closed during the third quarter in Lexington increased 4.7 percent, the Lexington-Bluegrass Association of Realtors said Thursday. In the 14-county area served by LBAR's members, single-family sales were up 4 percent.
if(miyahoo.ads[mi_live_or_preview].dart.enabled){ // 'live' or 'preview' is set during page build
_krdDartInc++;
document.write('');
}
During the quarter in Lexington, 1,194 sales closed, up from 1,140 in the same quarter of 2008. Sales were gaining momentum as the quarter ended, with a 13 percent rise in September with 347 sales, 40 more than a year ago.
During the quarter in the region, 2,110 sales closed, up from 2,028 in the same quarter of 2008. Sales also gained momentum as the quarter ended with a 6.7 percent rise in September. That month saw 651 sales, 41 more than a year ago.
September is the first month this year that home sales in the region exceeded their 2007 figures, according to the data provided by LBAR's members.
Sales declined 0.7 percent in the region in August but were up 6.2 percent in July.
In Lexington, sales were up just 1.7 percent throughout July and August. The months are not broken out separately in LBAR's statistical report.
Year-over-year price changes varied during the quarter. Lexington saw a substantial decline in the median sales price for residential sales in September: The price fell 7.5 percent to $149,838 from $162,000 a year ago.
The region saw varied results. In July, the median sales price for residential homes was $147,398, down 1.7 percent year-over-year. In August, it fell to $144,000 from $152,900 in August 2008, a drop of 5.8 percent. In September, the percentage drop-off narrowed to 1.8 percent with a median sales price of $140,000.
Central Kentucky's drop in sales prices has not been as pronounced during the recession as other areas of the country.
The average days on the market for a single-family home in the region was 78 at the end of the quarter, down from 93 a year earlier. Lexington was better with an average days on market of 66 compared to 69 a year ago.
The inventory of homes also was down in the region, with 6,238 for sale in September 2009, a drop of 5.4 percent.
"Interest rates are very low; there is a good selection of homes on the market and there is no reason not to be able find the home of your choice," LBAR president Gale Fulton said in a statement.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Friday, October 02, 2009
Does this Sound Familiar?
Not that I am for taking the horse farms and turning them into subdivisions, I am not, but maybe we could learn something from here in Central KY?
Urban planning to blame for housing bubble? - REAL Trends
Between 2000 and the bubble's peak, inflation- adjusted housing prices in California and Florida more than doubled, and since the peak they have fallen by 20 to 30 percent. In contrast, housing prices in Georgia and Texas grew by only about 20 to 25 percent, and they haven't significantly declined. In other words, California and Florida housing bubbled, but Georgia and Texas housing did not. This is not because people don't want to live in Georgia and Texas: since 2000, Atlanta, Dallas-Ft. Worth, and Houston have been the nation's fastest-growing urban areas, each growing by more than 120,000 people per year. According to a new study by the CATO Institute and Randal O'Toole, this suggests that local factors, not national policies, were a necessary condition for the housing bubbles where they took place. The most important factor that distinguishes states like California and Florida from states like Georgia and Texas is the amount of regulation imposed on landowners and developers, and in particular a regulatory system known as growth management. In short, restrictive growth management was a necessary condition for the housing bubble, says the study. Read more click here.
Real Trends Comment: Thomas Sowell's book, "Housing Boom and Bust" is one great read to understand how it was government involvement at all levels, local, state and federal, that was mostly responsible for both the boom and the bust in housing. At local and state levels, governmental action to reduce the land available for development and the cost of development caused huge price bubbles that exacerbated the wild swings in prices in such markets as San Francisco and Los Angeles when compared to cities like Atlanta and Houston. At the federal level the stimulus to accelerate low income households entry into homeownership caused Fannie and Freddie to purchase too many low downpayment and low credit scoring families - ending with the high foreclosure rates even before the recession.
Urban planning to blame for housing bubble? - REAL Trends
Between 2000 and the bubble's peak, inflation- adjusted housing prices in California and Florida more than doubled, and since the peak they have fallen by 20 to 30 percent. In contrast, housing prices in Georgia and Texas grew by only about 20 to 25 percent, and they haven't significantly declined. In other words, California and Florida housing bubbled, but Georgia and Texas housing did not. This is not because people don't want to live in Georgia and Texas: since 2000, Atlanta, Dallas-Ft. Worth, and Houston have been the nation's fastest-growing urban areas, each growing by more than 120,000 people per year. According to a new study by the CATO Institute and Randal O'Toole, this suggests that local factors, not national policies, were a necessary condition for the housing bubbles where they took place. The most important factor that distinguishes states like California and Florida from states like Georgia and Texas is the amount of regulation imposed on landowners and developers, and in particular a regulatory system known as growth management. In short, restrictive growth management was a necessary condition for the housing bubble, says the study. Read more click here.
Real Trends Comment: Thomas Sowell's book, "Housing Boom and Bust" is one great read to understand how it was government involvement at all levels, local, state and federal, that was mostly responsible for both the boom and the bust in housing. At local and state levels, governmental action to reduce the land available for development and the cost of development caused huge price bubbles that exacerbated the wild swings in prices in such markets as San Francisco and Los Angeles when compared to cities like Atlanta and Houston. At the federal level the stimulus to accelerate low income households entry into homeownership caused Fannie and Freddie to purchase too many low downpayment and low credit scoring families - ending with the high foreclosure rates even before the recession.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)