[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by Stylo

The article doesn't give much faith in the data used. How do they compute "value" from 2007? There is zero methodology or sources listed. This is worse than Zillow.

Anyway, look at all the coastal towns in FFC compared to the town(s) north of them

The towns that apparently appreciated are tiny rural towns in the middle of nowhere. Prob grew from nothing to slightly more than nothing.

The article uses data from the Warren Group, which is one of the largest databases of real estate information nationwide. If you go to their website, you can view the source.

In looking at year over year stats on sites like Redfin and Trulia, you can see that then numbers aren’t far off. Milford’s latest median sale price is 297k, for example, not far off from the 300k noted in the article. I wouldn’t be so quick to discount the information.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by ProudFairfielder

Car ownership is at record lows.

Several sources show this to not only be false, but the complete opposite to be true.

https://www.valuepenguin.com/auto-in...hip-statistics

https://baltimorepostexaminer.com/ca...why/2019/05/14

[Lincolnian]

Keep in mind the median home price figures vary widely even within a short period of time. In June the median home price for all of CT was $266k and in Feb it was $215k. September was $245k. What is more important is looking at groups of very similar homes in specific neighborhoods at different price points. When looked at that way the majority of CT communities have seen growth since the recession at the low end (under $200k), prices close to their pre-recession level in the $200k to $300/$350k range, and price declines in homes above $350k. The mix of how many homes of each type within a community affect whether that community is showing an increase, flat, or decline in prices. For some communities the price points are higher or lower such as Greenwich or Putnam. Even within a town the median prices can spike or dive depending on what types of homes are on the market at any given time. In towns with diverse price points rarely is the mix evenly listed or sold. If a number of homes in the lower price point come to market and demand is high it can reduce the median sale price because more lower homes are in the list. If only a couple lower-priced homes are available for sale and are sold and there is a larger number of higher priced homes in the list the median sales price will be higher.

[Stepfordct]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

Several sources show this to not only be false, but the complete opposite to be true.

https://www.valuepenguin.com/auto-in...hip-statistics

https://baltimorepostexaminer.com/ca...why/2019/05/14

Yes if ownership is so low, why is traffic worse in CT more now than ever.

[Stepfordct]

What about all the flips, knockdowns, and new home construction on raw land thats so popular now? These usually trade at the higher prices in the market. This would inflate the prices in the respective towns that this is occurring in.
Making the bad news actually worse...

[adamz]

The article is spot on for my town, Mansfield. House prices have still not recovered to their pre-crash values.

I don't think there's a flaw in the analysis, because even though values were artificially elevated by the bubble of the 2000's, the same was true across the country, and many other areas have recovered.

It's pretty clear that people are not flocking to live in CT. That makes sense- the cost of living is relatively high and businesses are not relocating here. The thing is, if house prices continue to stagnate, CT may become more attractive as other areas become less affordable.

[MrGompers]

Sounds like there's a lot of real estate bargains in CT.



I heard Mel Gibson's Greenwich estate sold for 3 million less than asking price. If that's not a sign of a crashing real estate market I don;t know what is. Time to buy and invest guys.

[MikefromCT]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

Not one of the towns that has seen a recovery is coastal, and only one might be considered dense.

WH is definitely dense, but I don't think that's quite it as far as why it's proven so resilient here. Honestly I have no idea why. The town has lots of appeal and a lot going for it, but so do many other towns that haven't bounced back yet.

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

How is this a flawed analysis? What valuation tactics were used in 2007?

I actually find these numbers to be exactly what should be looked at when discussing home prices. A lot of posters bring up Q1 vs Q2 comparisons but so much can alter those small samples that they aren’t very accurate over a short period of time. Over a 5-10 year span is what really matters, and that seems to be what’s shown here.

correct

[DairyGodmother]

I am encouraged if Fairfield is nearly flat at -2.6%. I bought a little cape in 2013 for 535 and I think it's worth about 500 now. I may have overpaid for the location (its a particularly good block) so maybe the next buyer will too :-). I concur that in this town the houses near the town/train are doing better than the ones up by the Merrit. The houses built to FEMA code by the water are selling very well too. It's kind of funny to drive down there and see the mansions pushed in between modest little homes. I'd like to see that data in that article broken down by lot size or square footage. Anecdotally I've seen perfectly finished starter homes sell above-ask but large homes on large lots sit, and sit, and sit.