Dutchess County home listings asked for more money in February - see the current median price here
Compared to February 2024, the median home list price decreased 5.9% from $583,000.
The statistics in this article only pertain to houses listed for sale in Dutchess County, not houses that were sold. Information on your local housing market, along with other useful community data, is available at data.poughkeepsiejournal.com.
Dutchess County's median home was 2,141 square feet, listed at $271 per square foot. The price per square foot of homes for sale is up 8.5% from February 2024.
Listings in Dutchess County moved steadily, at a median 75 days listed compared to the February national median of 66 days on the market. In the previous month, homes had a median of 84 days on the market. Around 188 homes were newly listed on the market in February, a 10.5% decrease from 210 new listings in February 2024.
The median home prices issued by Realtor.com may exclude many, or even most, of a market's homes. The price and volume represent only single-family homes, condominiums or townhomes. They include existing homes, but exclude most new construction as well as pending and contingent sales.
Across the New York-Newark-Jersey City metro area, median home prices rose to $766,889, slightly higher than a month earlier. The median home had 1,473 square feet, at a list price of $538 per square foot.
In New York, median home prices were $659,974, a slight increase from January. The median New York home listed for sale had 1,559 square feet, with a price of $414 per square foot.
Throughout the United States, the median home price was $412,000, a slight increase from the month prior. The median American home for sale was listed at 1,791 square feet, with a price of $227 per square foot.
The median home list price used in this report represents the midway point of all the houses or units listed over the given period of time. Experts say the median offers a more accurate view of what's happening in a market than the average list price, which would mean taking the sum of all listing prices then dividing by the number of homes sold. The average can be skewed by one particularly low or high price.
The USA TODAY Network is publishing localized versions of this story on its news sites across the country, generated with data from Realtor.com. Please leave any feedback or corrections for this story here. This story was written by Ozge Terzioglu.
This article originally appeared on Poughkeepsie Journal: Dutchess County home listings asked for more money in February - see the current median price here
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
23 minutes ago
- The Hill
US flight attendants are fed up like their Air Canada peers. Here's why they are unlikely to strike
At the end of work trips, Nathan Miller goes home to a makeshift bedroom in his parents' house in Virginia. The 29-year-old flight attendant is part of a PSA Airlines crew based in Philadelphia, but he can't afford to live there. Miller says he makes about $24,000 a year staffing multiple flights a day as a full-time attendant for the American Airlines subsidiary. To get to work, he commutes by plane between Virginia Beach and Philadelphia International Airport, a distance of about 215 miles. 'I've considered finding a whole new job. It's not something that I want to do,' Miller, who joined PSA two years ago, said. 'But it's not sustainable.' His situation isn't unique. Frustrations among flight attendants at both regional and legacy airlines have been building for years over paychecks that many of them say don't match the weight of what their jobs demand. Compounding the discontent over hourly wages is a long-standing airline practice of not paying attendants for the work they perform on the ground, like getting passengers on and off planes. Air Canada's flight attendants put a public spotlight on these simmering issues when about 10,000 of them walked off the job last weekend, leading the airline to cancel more than 3,100 flights. The strike ended Tuesday with a tentative deal that includes wage increases and, for the first time, pay for boarding passengers. In the United States, however, the nearly century-old Railway Labor Act makes it far more difficult for union flight attendants like Miller, a member of the Association of Flight Attendants, to strike than most other American workers. Unlike the Boeing factory workers and Hollywood writers and actors who collectively stopped work in recent years, U.S. airline workers can only strike if federal mediators declare an impasse — and even then, the president or Congress can intervene. For that reason, airline strikes are exceedingly rare. The last major one in the U.S. was over a decade ago by Spirit Airlines pilots, and most attempts since then have failed. American Airlines flight attendants tried in 2023 but were blocked by mediators. Without the ultimate bargaining chip, airline labor unions have seen their power eroded in contract talks that now stretch far beyond historical norms, according to Sara Nelson, the international president of the AFA. Negotiations that once took between a year and 18 months now drag on for three years, sometimes more. 'The right to strike is fundamental to collective bargaining, but it has been chipped away,' Nelson said. Her union represents 50,000 attendants, including the ones at United Airlines, Alaska Airlines and PSA Airlines. On Monday, she joined PSA flight attendants in protest outside Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, near where an airliner operated by PSA crashed into the Potomac River in January after colliding with an Army helicopter. All 67 people on the two aircraft were killed, including the plane's pilot, co-pilot and two flight attendants. The airline's flight attendants also demonstrated outside airports in Philadelphia, Dallas, Charlotte and Dayton, Ohio. In a statement, PSA called the demonstrations 'one of the important ways flight attendants express their desire to get a deal done — and we share the same goal.' Flight attendants say their jobs have become more demanding in recent years. Planes are fuller, and faster turnaround times between flights are expected. Customers may see them mostly as uniforms that serve food and beverages, but the many hats attendants juggle include handling in-flight emergencies, deescalating conflicts and managing unruly passengers. 'We have to know how to put out a lithium battery fire while at 30,000 feet, or perform CPR on a passenger who's had a heart attack. We're trained to evacuate a plane in 90 seconds, and we're always the last ones off,' said Becky Black, a PSA flight attendant in Dayton, Ohio, who is part of the union's negotiating team. And yet, Black says, their pay hasn't kept pace. PSA flight attendants have been bargaining for over two years for better wages and boarding pay. Alaska flight attendants spent just as long in talks before reaching a deal in February. At American, flight attendants began negotiations on a new contract in 2020 but didn't get one until 2024. Southwest Airlines attendants pushed even longer — over five years — before securing a new deal last year that delivered an immediate 22% wage hike and annual 3% increases through 2027. 'It was a great relief,' Alison Head, a longtime Southwest flight attendant based in Atlanta, said. 'Coming out of COVID, where you saw prices were high and individuals struggling, it really meant something.' The contract didn't include boarding pay but secured the industry's first paid maternity and parental leave, a historic win for the largely female workforce. A mother of two, Head said she returned to work 'fairly quickly' after having her first child because she couldn't afford to stay home. 'Now, new parents don't have to make that same hard decision,' she said. Many of her peers at other airlines are still waiting for their new contracts. At United, attendants rejected a tentative agreement last month, with 71% voting no. The union is now surveying its members to understand why and plans to return to the bargaining table in December. One major sticking point: boarding pay. While Delta became the first U.S. airline to offer it in 2022 — followed by American and Alaska — many flight attendants still aren't compensated during what they call the busiest part of their shift. Back in Virginia Beach, Miller is still trying to make it work. To report for duty at the Philadelphia airport on time, Miller says he wakes up at around 4 a.m. Once his commuter flight lands, it could be hours still before he is officially on the clock and getting paid. His work day sometimes ends at 2 a.m. the next morning. Depending what time it is when Miller returns to Philadelphia, he might spend the night at what's known as a 'crash pad,' a shared housing unit for flight crew members who commute to their base. Miller says his crash pad is a two-bedroom apartment with 10 beds in it. On family vacations during his childhood, Miller said he was fascinated by flight attendants and their ability to make passengers feel comfortable and safe. Now he's got his dream job, but he isn't sure he can afford to keep doing it.
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Immigrant population in US drops for the first time in decades
Advertisement But experts predict looming negative economic and demographic consequences for the United States if the trend persists. Immigrants are a crucial workforce in many sectors, and the country's reliance on them is growing as more baby boomers retire. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up After campaigning on a promise of mass deportations, Trump has introduced sweeping measures to reduce immigration. His administration has restricted access to asylum at the southern border, tightened visa requirements for students and tech workers, and deployed thousands of federal agents to detain and deport immigrants without lawful status. The crackdown has led immigrants to leave the country voluntarily and has discouraged others from coming. Lillian Divina Leite, 46, chose to use the government's new self-deportation program to return to Brazil. A housekeeper in Charlotte, N.C., Leite said that she had begun to panic when she saw immigrants being 'hunted down like hardened criminals.' Advertisement 'I got really scared,' said Leite, who had fallen out of legal status after overstaying a six-month tourist visa. 'I thought, I haven't done anything wrong in my life,' she said, 'and suddenly I could be imprisoned.' Despite the study's findings, Kevin Lynn, executive director of the Institute for Sound Public Policy, which advocates for less immigration, said that foreign workers who enter lawfully continue to pour into the United States and undermine Americans. 'There has been no letup,' he said. 'People coming here legally, whether on green cards or employment visas, are impacting American workers at all strata, whether low-skilled or high-skilled.' Net migration — the difference between the number of immigrants arriving and departing — has turned negative, a shift that the chief Pew demographer, Jeffrey Passel, called a 'demographic certainty' so far in 2025. His team's analysis did not calculate a separate number for immigrants without lawful status who seem likely to represent the largest number of departures, because heightened enforcement probably diminished immigrants' participation in the census survey that was used to make estimates, he said. They may have been undercounted, which would suggest the drop is not as severe, or their low participation could mask an even more striking decline. The United States experienced negative net immigration in the 1930s, during the Great Depression, when between 400,000 and 1 million Mexicans and Mexican Americans left, many under coercive repatriation programs. In July, the conservative-leaning American Enterprise Institute projected net migration in 2025 would be flat or would even drop and predicted that the Trump administration's policies would continue to squeeze out low- and high-skilled foreign workers at least through 2026. Advertisement 'A rapid decline in immigration is going to cause economic harm,' said Tara Watson, an economist at the Brookings Institution and one of the authors of the report. Political pushback and legal challenges could lead the Trump administration to ease its crackdown and, thus, soften the impact, she said. But legislation recently passed by the Republican-controlled Congress has significantly increased funding for immigration enforcement, suggesting that the restrictive approach could extend throughout Trump's term. If so, 'we could go into a spiral of continued decline,' said Watson, which could undermine US competitiveness for global talent. 'If things are really bad, we no longer are the place where people go to do science or tech, and that could have generational repercussions,' she said. In addition to targeting migrants without lawful status, the administration has introduced measures that have undermined legal immigration. It has paused the refugee program, which offered green cards and a path to citizenship to people fleeing persecution. It has increased screening and vetting of visa applicants, which experts expect will reduce the numbers of foreign workers and students. The Trump administration has ended several Biden-era programs that had allowed people from troubled countries to live and work temporarily in the United States. Thousands of immigrants are set to lose their protected status in coming months. Migration across the southern border, which had begun to slow under asylum restrictions imposed late in the term of President Joe Biden, has declined further since Trump returned to office. Employment opportunities have long been the primary draw for immigrants, with migration typically slowing during economic downturns. During the Great Recession, more Mexicans without authorized status left the United States than arrived. Advertisement But the current decline is unfolding in response to stringent policies and at a time when the United States needs immigration to offset a falling birthrate and an aging population. 'We have more and more people over 65 and not in the workforce,' said Dowell Myers, a demography professor at the University of Southern California. 'A new baby won't help us for 20 years, but a young immigrant helps us immediately.' 'If you take a sledgehammer to the labor force by cutting immigrant flows,' he said, 'we are all going to be seeing the consequences in our everyday lives.' Restaurants, farms, and assisted-living facilities are already grappling with labor shortages that could become more pronounced, he said. Many of those roles are filled by unauthorized immigrants, whose population reached 14 million in 2023, according to Pew, and who accounted for 4 percent of the total US population and about a quarter of the foreign-born population. California had the most unauthorized residents in 2023, at 2.3 million, followed closely by Texas, with 2.1 million. Florida had the largest increase, adding 700,000 for a total of 1.6 million. Through mid-2024, the unauthorized population continued to grow at a fast clip, before starting to contract following policy changes in 2025, according to a preliminary Pew analysis. About half of the 14 million unauthorized immigrants in 2023 had been in the United States for more than a decade, and 4.6 million US-born children have parents who are in the country without lawful status. Pew's estimates are based on an analysis of Census Bureau data, including the American Community Survey and the Current Population Survey. Advertisement The Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency is holding a record 60,000 immigrants in detention, and that number is expected to soar as planned facilities open. Confined immigrants often agree to be swiftly deported rather than languish in custody while awaiting court rulings on whether they can remain in the United States. This article originally appeared in
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Divided court eliminates Trump's half-billion-dollar fine in fraud case
While the court effectively upheld the fraud judgment against the president, several of the justices raised major questions about the case, which was decided by a state trial judge last year. A primary goal of their decision was to allow Trump to move to New York's highest court, giving him another opportunity to challenge the finding that he was a fraudster. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Despite the complexities, Thursday's ruling handed Trump a financial victory and a measure of legal validation. It represented a setback for New York's attorney general, Letitia James, who is one of the president's foremost adversaries and a target of his wide-ranging retribution campaign. The case had been a career-defining victory after she campaigned promising to bring Trump to justice. Advertisement Trump responded on social media Thursday, declaring victory and praising the court for having 'the Courage to throw out this unlawful and disgraceful Decision.' He added that the case had been 'a Political Witch Hunt, in a business sense.' Advertisement Trump's company, the Trump Organization, released a statement saying the case was brought out of political malice for the president and that the ruling 'unanimously derails the effort to destroy his business.' Still, the decision fell short of a full vindication. In denying Trump's bid to throw out the case, the court kept in place the ruling that he had committed fraud, an ignominious distinction for a sitting American president. James, in a statement, said that the court had 'affirmed the well-supported finding of the trial court: Donald Trump, his company, and two of his children are liable for fraud.' James, who pledged to appeal, filed the case against Trump and his family real estate business in 2022, accusing them of inflating his net worth to obtain favorable loan terms. After a months-long trial, the judge overseeing the case ruled last year that Trump was liable for conspiring to commit fraud, denting the mogul image that had enabled his political rise. Thursday's ruling came almost a year after the five judges, from the Appellate Division for the 1st Department, heard oral arguments, a delay that reflected the legal and political complexities of a case against a sitting president. Ultimately, the case was so divisive that the judges failed to form a true majority. Moulton's opinion upholding the case and wiping out the financial penalties received one additional vote, from the presiding justice, Dianne Renwick. Another judge, David Friedman, who has been skeptical of the accusations for years, wanted to throw the case out entirely, believing James had lacked the power to bring it. Two other judges, John Higgitt and Llinet Rosado, concluded that James had the authority to file the case, but wanted to provide Trump a new trial. Arguing that 'a remarkable situation has necessitated a remarkable solution,' they agreed to let the fraud judgment stand so that the case could move to a higher appeals court. They wrote that they did so 'after much consideration, with great reluctance.' Advertisement The four justices who formed the reluctant majority were appointed by Democratic governors. Friedman was appointed by Governor George Pataki, a Republican. In his own lengthy opinion, Friedman pointed out that he and two other judges — a majority — had believed that the judgment against Trump should be thrown out. But the trio could not agree on an effective remedy, allowing the judgment to stand for now. Friedman also blasted James for comments she made while running for office in 2018. She had pledged to investigate Trump, calling his presidency 'illegitimate' and saying she would join with other attorneys general in seeking to remove him from the White House. Even the judges more sympathetic to the attorney general's case agreed that criticism was merited, though they noted that they had already considered Trump's claims of political persecution and rejected them. In the appeal, Trump's lawyers argued that the roughly $450 million judgment — which before Thursday's ruling sat at more than $520 million with interest — was excessive, given that his lenders never lost money, and that the attorney general's office was meddling in private transactions. In Thursday's decision, Moulton agreed that the punishment outstripped the wrongdoing. He concluded that it was 'an excessive fine' barred under the Constitution. He rejected a new trial, however, saying that it is 'difficult to imagine that a trial could proceed while one of the principal defendants, and a central witness, is President of the United States.' Advertisement Moulton also wrote that the evidence clearly demonstrated liability, highlighting volumes of evidence against Trump, his two sons who run the family business and some of the company's top executives. The ruling maintained the result of a case that put Trump's fantastical claims of wealth on trial. But the judges' various disagreements reinforced the importance of any future decision in New York's highest court, the Court of Appeals. When the state judge, Arthur F. Engoron, imposed the half-billion-dollar judgment in February of last year, the eye-popping sum appeared to represent an existential threat to the Trump Organization. Trump's company struggled for weeks to line up a bond that would allow him to appeal the judgment without paying the state. When Trump came up short, the attorney general's office appeared poised to freeze some of Trump's bank accounts, until the appeals court allowed him to post a smaller bond. The court also did not force Trump to pay the penalty while he appealed the case. Much has changed since then, when Trump was still facing criminal indictments as he tried to reclaim the White House. Not only did he win reelection — a victory that effectively eliminated his criminal cases — but he also has recently reaped a windfall from his personal business ventures. His foray into cryptocurrency has been particularly profitable, adding billions of dollars in paper value to his net worth and removing any real threat to his financial stability. The civil fraud trial stemming from James's lawsuit was not decided by a jury. Instead, the power belonged to Engoron, who found after months of testimony that Trump had lied to lenders about the value of his properties. The judge sought to claw back Trump's ill-gotten profits and interest savings. Advertisement The judge also delivered a sweeping array of punishments, including barring Trump for three years from serving in top roles at any New York company, including portions of his own Trump Organization. He banned Trump's adult sons for two years. The appeals court, while eliminating the financial penalties, gave those other punishments the green light. This article originally appeared in
