The 10 Most Dollar-Discounted Housing Markets

Listing prices in these cities have been slashed by millions of dollars over the past year

By Luke Mullins

Posted: June 26, 2009

As the historic real estate bust continues to gut home prices throughout the country, property owners everywhere are scrambling to attract buyers. For some home sellers, that might mean chipping in for closing costs; others might try to sweeten the deal by handing out perks, like a free parking spot. But for many homeowners, the most efficient way to sell a home in a depressed market is to simply drop the listing price. Such price reductions are welcome news for would-be buyers and represent—along with low mortgage rates and the federal first-time home buyer tax credit—a compelling incentive to jump into the market. But while the housing collapse has been a national event, not all markets have been hit with equal force. To pinpoint which housing markets are offering the steepest discounts in total dollar terms, we turned to the real estate search engine of U.S. News partner Trulia. It examined listing prices of homes for sale in the 50 most populous American cities over the 12 months that ended June 9, 2009, and ranked them by total price reductions in dollars. Based on this research, here are the 10 markets that have seen the greatest dollar drops in combined listing prices.

[See The Top 10 Housing Markets for the Next 10 Years.]

1. Manhattan: Combined listing prices of homes currently on the market in Manhattan have been marked down by more than $1 billion between June 9, 2008, and June 9, 2009, according to Trulia. Home price declines accelerated dramatically in the wake of the collapse of Lehman Brothers in mid-September, says Noah Rosenblatt, vice president at Halstead Property, a New York residential real estate brokerage. "For that period of time, the market was frozen—there were barely any deals," says Rosenblatt, who is also the publisher of UrbanDigs.com, a blog focused on the Manhattan real estate market. "And you find out how desperate somebody is when there are just no bids." The post-Lehman trauma affected the higher end of the market—properties valued at $5 million and higher—most severely, Rosenblatt says. In the early months of this year, when the stock market was tanking, "everyone thought the world was going to end," he says. "It was really Armageddon prices—35 to 40 percent off."

[Check out Housing Sector 'No Longer in Freefall': 5 Things You Need to Know]

2. Miami: Listing prices in Miami have dropped more than $257 million over the past year. As the housing boom turned to bust, Miami was one of the most severely affected markets in the country, says Jack McCabe of Florida-based McCabe Research & Consulting. "A lot of that was due to overbuilding of condominium units, especially luxury high-rise condominium units, as well as the high percentage of very toxic, payment option adjustable-rate mortgages which were utilized to make these acquisitions," McCabe says. "On top of that, it is our estimate that in the condominium market, about 70 to 80 percent of the sales were to speculators, not future owner-occupiers." McCabe adds that like New York, the higher end of the Miami market is taking the brunt of the pain amid evaporating demand and scarce financing.

[See 2010 Home Price and Mortgage Rate Outlook: 5 Things to Know]

3. Los Angeles: After home values boomed during the first half of the decade, listing prices in Los Angeles have been slashed by nearly $236 million over the past year. The city's huge supply of foreclosed homes has been a major factor. "Everybody wants a deal on the foreclosure," says Mark Hanson, a managing director who handles real estate and finance research at the Field Check Group. "You are seeing the same exact dynamics [in the L.A. housing market] as you see everywhere else: more loan defaults than total number of homes sold, the majority of the home sales are occurring at the less-than-$300,000 range, over half of the sales are in the distressed market, and the organic buyer—the mom and pop trying to buy and sell homes to each other—is being edged out of the market because they can't sell for what the property is worth."

4. Chicago: Listing prices in Chicago have fallen by more than $212 million over the past year. The city's real estate market has been hammered by a shrinking economy and an eroding labor market, says Jim Merrion, regional director of RE/MAX Northern Illinois. As an example, he points out that "Chicago [is] a metropolitan transportation hub, and a lot of the vehicles being shipped across the country pass through Chicago. So as vehicle sales drop, there is less shipping, crane operators get laid off, and it all cascades."

Jobs and wages are the problem not taxes.

The largest period of growth in the history of the United States was from 1933 to 1973. These years: also, seen the highest top tax brackets for the rich: 70 to 91 percent. Does anyone remember the old days, when American car companies were solvent? Maybe, we should examine the reasons behind such growth at a time of extremely high top tax rates.

First of all no one likes to pay taxes, not me, not you, and not the businessman; but they are necessary to maintain economic growth. When a wealthy individual faces high taxes they still have alternatives. Pay the taxes, risk penalties and possible jail time, or decrease their income by creating more expenses. Not surprisingly, most will choose the later. Taxes are only paid on profits not offset by expenses. When faced with that kind of a choice, the smart business person will first grow their existing company. That cost money, and is a deductable expense. Thus, they increased their expenses and decreased their top tax bracket. So they really still have the money and created more jobs along the way. This increases their net worth as well as their income. In the following years they will face even bigger tax problems and have to expand again and again. As all the wealthy face the same tax problems more and more jobs are created and the demand for labor rises. As demand for labor rises so does wages. As wages increase, so does spending. As spending increases so does the need for more goods and services. When taxed properly it can be a never ending cycle driven by investment, reinvestment, spending, job growth, and constantly higher wages. You see, they had a choice from 1933 to 1973 create jobs, grow net worth, and grow their income, or let Uncle Sam spend their money!

Some will say why not just let the rich keep their money and spend it as they desire. The answer isn’t as complicated as it seems. If they spent the excess money on goods and services made in the United States it wouldn’t be a huge problem, but the fact is they don’t. However, they will generally invest their excess cash in something. Since we have seen very low income tax rates for the rich it has been in things like hedge funds, credit debit swaps, hostile company takeovers that end in a parting out of the business, and cash going to overseas to manufacturing companies where the labor is cheap. These things don’t grow our countries economy, and in fact decrease our standard of living and eliminate jobs.

Anyone remember years ago when Wal-Mart preached, “Buy American first”? That was back in 1973. And now they sell United States flags made in China!

Ron L of IA @ Dec 10, 2009 02:03:30 AM

Comments on article

I note that the first two comments have little or nothing to do with the article; the organized, "free market" talking points are being circulated in a very organized way. Anybody who can't tell the difference between slavery and our government's response to our economic problems needs to brush up on how to think, not skip over the fact that those problems stem in large measure from the actions of people like AIG and investment bankers who made a free market in junk investments because they were not effectively regulated to protect us from their greed.

As to the other comments, I agree the article has little depth and little of practical use in specific situations; still, knowing what trends are underway is helpful in picking general areas to look in for specific opportunities.

Vank of FL @ Aug 13, 2009 10:54:59 AM

Taxation is slavery

1. Add up all your income 2. Add up all the taxes you pay. 3. Divide your total taxes by total income to get a ratio. 4. Multiply the ratio from step 3 to see how many months per year you are a government slave. For example: 1. Income 10,000. Taxes: 2. 5,000. 3. Ratio 0.50. Slave: 6 months per year.

Honest Abe Lincoln said that a house divided cannot stand and that a nation half-slave and half-free cannot long endure. It was not the free market that created slavery, but the failure of government to secure the rights of the slaves to be free. Lincoln corrected that failure (in terms of American-American slavery) but could not foresee a day when the government itself would become the slave-master through oppressive tax and regulatory regimes.

Now you would want the government to dictate who can and cannot receive care?

No!

Paul of NJ @ Aug 04, 2009 11:01:32 AM

Add Your Thoughts
About You

advertisement

U.S. News Rankings & Research

U.S. News's "America's Best" delivers recognized, authoritative information and clear, objective rankings that help readers plan for their life and ultimately, make the most of it.

advertisement

Slide Shows

Sponsored Poll

What factor do you think is responsible for the majority of teen-driving crashes?

View Results

advertisement

Subscribe

U.S. News Digital Weekly

A weekly insider's guide to politics and policy — in a multimedia, digital format. 52 issues for $19.95!

U.S. News & World Report

6 months of U.S. News & World Report's print edition for only $15. Save up to 67% off the cover price!