Average Home-Sale Price in New Milford Drops [Interactive Map]
The average home sold last year in New Milford went for $343,093 down 11.1 percent from 2011.
By Colleen O'Dea, NJ Spotlight
The national housing market may be on the rebound, at least for new-home sales, but prices in New Jersey are still dropping in most communities, state data shows.
According to an analysis of the average residential sales price for New Jersey communities over the last five years, the typical sales price dropped between 2011 and 2012 in almost three-quarters of towns. In 21 municipalities, the decline was more than 25 percent from year-to-year. And nine in 10 municipalities logged an average home sales price in 2012 that was lower than five years earlier.
Average home-sale prices in New Milford have dipped 24 percent since 2008.
Homes sold in New Milford in 2012 went for an average of $343,093 down more than 11 percent from the prior year, where prices averaged $385,968. Here is a breakdown of the averages:
- 2012: $343,093
- 2011: $385,968
- 2010: $409,329
- 2009: $382,326
- 2008: $451,145
Read more and view an interactive map of average home-sale prices across the state by clicking here.
NJ Spotlight is an issue-driven news website that provides critical insight to New Jersey’s communities and businesses. It is non-partisan, independent, policy-centered and community-minded.
NewMilfDadMakinEndsMeet
11:17 am on Monday, March 4, 2013
This is really quite pitiful considering how my (and no doubt most folks) taxes have gone up. What a shame.
tony mac
12:03 am on Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Lets see. Lets keep raising taxes. Lets expand existing buildings. Lets but more equipment. Lets hire more people. Lets keep any ratables out of town. Lets keep giving away our ratables. Lets keep floating bonds to drive our rates higher.
When I finally sell my house, which I bought 40 years ago, I hope I will not sell it for less than I bought it!
Jimmy Drake
10:13 am on Tuesday, March 5, 2013
This is where my mixed emotions get stirred up.
It seems like EVERYTHING is going up except property values and income. This is why I am not against some development to the water property from outside, professional, business money - creating new jobs for residents . But for the town to get involved in purchasing the property, float bonds, etc. possibly committing us to HIGHER taxes, is just not in my dream book.
Matter of fact, I read an article the other day from what I believe is a political candidate and he actually used the words "some how some way" that he would arrange to get funding for the property. WHAT HAPPENS IF WE BUY IT AND THE MONEY DOESN'T COME THROUGH?
This is not fantasyland. We are a working class community which does have to work for what we get. Any politician who would profess to get money "Some how some way" is making a mockery of the intelligence of voters and tax payers in town.
<< some how some way>> I still can't believe he wrote that.
Anthony
11:53 am on Tuesday, March 5, 2013
It is the law of supply and demand. Demand in New Milford is down, so prices are down. Supply is up all over so potential buyers can get picky,there are significant quality of life issues that drive purchasing decisions much more than taxes.
A modest house in River Edge or Oradell has property taxes comparable to NM, but then compare the high schools, it is like night and day.If a purchaser is considering buying a mc mansion in New Milford or a smaller house in River Edge or Oradell, based upon the schools & athletic programs for their children, NM will lose every time. In my opinion, a field/park next to the high school or single family homes next to the high school is more attractive to a buyer, than a mega shop rite and apartment house. If this shop rite is built, property values will continue to go down and property taxes will continue to go up, it is that simple. For those who want ratable property, keep the property zoned single family and collect the $15-k a year from every house that gets built. In the long run the town will collect a lot more money (no depreciation of residential property as opposed to the write down of commercial property), the quality of the neighborhood will be preserved and there will be more money to invest in our crumbling infrastructure. If you think people are pissed now, wait until they get their tax bills, they will no doubt be higher for a lot more folks and the County portion is also going to be much higher for everyone as well.
Lori Barton
11:53 am on Sunday, March 10, 2013
Towns who provide for young people are towns who retain property values. Who buys the majority of homes? Young couples who are starting families are most likely to buy homes. What are they looking for? They look at schools & athletic opportunities before they look at the taxes. NM schools spend "below adequacy" according to NJ. That is thru no fault of the BOE. It goes back 15 years when budgets were repeatedly defeated & cuts were made. Then came budget caps, so even tho NJ keeps cutting their funding & NM is spending less than NJ wants us to spend, the BOE is not allowed to raise more money than the 2% cap (which doesn't cover the actual cost increases).
Then there's the condition of the high school field, again not due to the BOE. The field floods, much more in recent years due to overdevelopment of coastal lands. There is no place big enough in NM to relocate the field (to include the track, bleachers, & field house) except the Suez/United Water property. If you think that by developing that property it will increase ratables & decrease your taxes, you are sadly mistaken. Contrary to what most people believe, preserving open space costs less than commercial development that frequently has hidden municipal costs including increases in spending for police & fire protection, traffic control, court costs & sewage treatment. The houses that abut the new development will decrease in value resulting in a loss of tax revenue & a decreased quality of life for ALL of us.