********************************************************************

map1

 

New homebuyers are far better off purchasing a home in many towns in the middle of the country, and far worse off in many cities in California, according to a new report released this week.

The study examined data on housing affordability for people living in the area (as measured by the ratio of median household income over five years to ownership costs over five years, including closing costs, mortgage payments, insurance and taxes), ease of getting a mortgage and the stability of the housing markets in cities with populations of 300,000 or more.

Oklahoma City tops the list, thanks largely to how affordable homesare in the area for those who work there (the median home is only about $125,000, according to Zillow) and how stable the housing market is. Tulsa, Okla. is second on the list; even though it has fewer mortgage lenders than Oklahoma City, it is even more affordable for residents with the median home costing just over $100,000.

Indianapolis, Pittsburgh and Houston round out the top five. (Added bonus: all of these cities have unemployment rates below the national average.)

Meanwhile, a number of cities in California are the worst for first-time homebuyers, thanks in part to the fact that they are unaffordable for many in the area and the markets tend to be volatile. Indeed, the seven worst cities on this list — Los Angeles, Santa Ana, Anaheim, Riverside, Stockton, Long Beach and Oakland — are all in California.

(http://www.marketwatch.com/story/5-worst-housing-markets-for-first-time-buyers-2016-03-16?dist=realestate)

 

********************************************************************


Screen Shot 2016-06-04 at 7.58.31 PM

Screen Shot 2016-06-04 at 8.36.08 PM