A Sign of Improving Times? Metro Detroit home sale prices jump 42% in October

**Lowell** · November-12-13, 03:57 PM

Prices are were low so the climbing the next 42% won't be so easy but this is a pretty impressive YTY move.

Metro Detroit home sale prices in October notched another month of strong year-over-year gains amid a tighter inventory of properties on the market, according to new listing service data released today.

The median home sale price was $127,000 within the four-county region of Wayne, Oakland, Macomb and Livingston, or 42% higher than in October 2012, according to Realcomp, the Farmington Hills-based multiple listing service.

Source Freep.com

**MikeyinBrooklyn** · November-12-13, 04:34 PM

Hopefully, CofD property values will, in the next few years, emerge into realistic prices, and out of the ridiculously cheap realm they have been for years. It will benefit current homeowners, property tax collections, motivate home renovations, and be indicative of health in our city housing market.

I think the 42% pop is prices has a good deal to do with the fact that the number of foreclosures hitting the market is going down, which reduces supply. Also, foreclosed properties often sell for less or far less than market value.

**Danny** · November-12-13, 06:12 PM

YAY! The housing market is back, only to crash in 5 to 10 years.

**jerrytimes** · November-13-13, 12:06 AM

Upper-class homes have increased in price, middle class have barely.

**Hamtragedy** · November-13-13, 12:17 AM

I'm treating the whole housing-market-rebound-thing as nothing more than the Fed engineering a "bail-out" of sorts for those who were underwater from the 2007 crash, largely falsely created by banks reluctance to release, in a timely fashion, the tons of foreclosed homes that are out there, or at least the ones that are rehab-able. That would rule out the city, where there are tons, but few in any kind of rehab shape, that wouldn't cost a fortune to make livable.

As for prices in the CoD, with the exception of a boom that started around 93 or 94 and ran up until just before the bust in 2007, prices have always been historically low, compared to anything in the burbs. That being said, in neighborhoods such as Grandmont or Rosedale, and even Green Acres, prices are approaching their values realized in the mid 1980's, as opposed to the mid 1970's, which they easily were two years ago.

**Lowell** · November-13-13, 07:31 AM

Originally Posted by jerrytimes

Upper-class homes have increased in price, middle class have barely.

You are right in that upper class houses have moved the most, from what I can see on Zillow, but middle-class houses have made big moves too. To rely on a couple of of sayings, "A rising tide lifts all ships but big dogs still eat first."

This will trickle down to the under $100K properties and prices and rents in the New Center to Downtown axis have been on the rise for a while.

**motz** · November-13-13, 09:33 AM

When you're starting from the bottom, it isn't hard to see huge gains. Still a good sign nonetheless!

**Cincinnati_Kid** · November-13-13, 09:49 AM

Still sucks for the thousands of people who were foreclosed on and screwed out of their homes by greedy banks and mortgage companies who refused to help when a lot of people lost jobs when the recession hit. Most will never recover to buy again, and if they do the banks will make it even tougher for them to qualify. Count your blessings if this didn't happen to you.

**GP For Life** · November-13-13, 10:38 AM

Originally Posted by Cincinnati_Kid

Still sucks for the thousands of people who were foreclosed on and screwed out of their homes by greedy banks and mortgage companies who refused to help when a lot of people lost jobs when the recession hit. Most will never recover to buy again, and if they do the banks will make it even tougher for them to qualify. Count your blessings if this didn't happen to you.

A lot of them never should have been loaned money in the first place.

**Cincinnati_Kid** · November-13-13, 11:02 AM

Originally Posted by GP For Life

A lot of them never should have been loaned money in the first place.

What? I agree some people didn't deserve loans, but did you read my post? Many others got screwed through no fault of their own. So I guess you're like everyone else, it didn't happen to me, too bad.

**GP For Life** · November-13-13, 11:26 AM

Originally Posted by Cincinnati_Kid

What? I agree some people didn't deserve loans, but did you read my post? Many others got screwed through no fault of their own. So I guess you're like everyone else, it didn't happen to me, too bad.

I did read your post, but it's not a mortgage company's responsibility rearrange your debt to suit your needs. Should they have? Maybe, but if you borrow money that you become unable to pay back then the lender is entitled to the collateral. It's not a new concept.

**Cincinnati_Kid** · November-13-13, 07:34 PM

Originally Posted by GP For Life

I did read your post, but it's not a mortgage company's responsibility rearrange your debt to suit your needs. Should they have? Maybe, but if you borrow money that you become unable to pay back then the lender is entitled to the collateral. It's not a new concept.

I'm not stupid. I understand that. You're missing the point. As callous as you sound, you'd make a perfect mortgage broker.

**Kevgoblue** · November-13-13, 07:51 PM

Originally Posted by GP For Life

I did read your post, but it's not a mortgage company's responsibility rearrange your debt to suit your needs. Should they have? Maybe, but if you borrow money that you become unable to pay back then the lender is entitled to the collateral. It's not a new concept.

Can't disagree with your statement.
That being said, if banks didn't do their due diligence to ensure that they were loaning money to qualified borrowers then they deserved to go under. A large number of them were bailed out with public dollars, and the bailout should have been contingent on them responding in kind when possible.