Most Americans don’t know this $0-down mortgage exists — and 97% of the U.S. qualifies

 The home affordability crisis rages on.

According to the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University, an unprecedented 43.5 million U.S. households were considered “cost-burdened” in 2024, which means they had to dedicate more than 30% of their monthly income to housing costs, an increase of 6.4 million households since 2019.

Those costs were driven primarily by higher mortgage interest and insurance rates. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the median housing costs for homeowners with a mortgage rose from $1,960  to $2,035 in 2024. But there is another barrier for people looking to buy a home — the down payment — and in 2026, that barrier is bigger than ever.

According to recent data from the National Association of Realtors, the median price for a single-family existing home in the U.S. is now $434,800. That means half of all existing homes sold in the U.S. in the second quarter of 2026 cost more than $434,900. In some areas, the median is much higher.

The markets with the biggest yearly price gains aren’t in expensive metros like New York City and San Francisco; they’re in places like Beaumont-Port Arthur, Texas ( up 11.0%), Gulfport-Biloxi-Pascagoula, Mississippi (up by 10.3%) and Syracuse, New York, which is up by 9.6%. Fortunately, there is a solution that many prospective homebuyers either don’t know about or don’t know they qualify for: the USDA zero down payment mortgage.

What is the USDA zero down payment mortgage?

The roots of the USDA loan go back to the Great Depression when Congress under Franklin D. Roosevelt was fighting the severe economic consequences battering farmers. The federal government realized that without intervention, the nation’s agricultural backbone would collapse, and rural populations would migrate to already overcrowded cities. The loan program was created to incentivize people to stay in rural areas by providing them with a path to livable housing.

In the decades since, the mandate of the USDA has expanded, as has the availability of the USDA guaranteed loan. The primary benefit of this program is the $0 down payment requirement, allowing buyers to finance the entire purchase price of the property. Credit score criteria are also generally more flexible than you find with conventional mortgages, making it easier for first-time buyers to qualify. 

What most people don’t know, according to Ashley Harris, Director of Homebuyer Education at Neighbors Bank, is that “97% of US land mass falls in an eligible area, and most regions cap household income around $122,800 (higher in some high-cost areas),” so eligibility criteria are more inclusive than many people imagine. You can look up the local income limit here.

The deciding factor isn’t whether the neighborhood looks rural, but rather the area’s population density. The USDA uses a strict, tiered population framework to determine if a town, census-designated place or suburban pocket qualifies.

The first tier is areas with a population under 10,000 residents. The second tier is between 10,001 and 20,000 residents, as long as these areas aren’t part of a larger Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) and have a proven lack of affordable mortgage credit for low- to moderate-income families.

The final tier is the most surprising to most mortgage shoppers. If the area has between 20,001 and 35,000 residents, it can still qualify for USDA loans, but only if it was previously designated as rural in the past and lost that status due to growth but still lacks affordable housing options.

Rules of thumb for eligible suburbs

If you think buying in a more sparsely populated suburban area is more suitable for your budget, there are some rules of thumb to help you look in the right places.

Think outside the city limits

The sweet spot for suburban eligibility is usually a 15- to 20- mile radius outside the city limits of a metropolitan area. Commuter towns on the very edge of an MSA boundary are frequently eligible.

Think in census tracts rather than neighborhoods

Because USDA boundaries are drawn using census tracts rather than street grids, the eligibility line can literally cut right through the middle of a single suburban subdivision. A house on one side of the street might be eligible, while the house across the street is not.

Think mid-sized city, not megalopolis

A town of 15,000 people sitting 10 miles outside a massive city like Chicago or Dallas might be disqualified because it is swallowed by the urban MSA. However, that same town sitting 15 miles outside a mid-sized city (for example, one with 100,000 residents) will almost certainly qualify.

The ultimate rule of thumb is to never assume what the USDA eligibility status is based on how an area looks. You can look up any address for free a USDA Property Eligibility Map. If the address falls in a shaded ineligible zone, it cannot be financed with a USDA loan. There are no exceptions or workarounds.

What to know about USDA loans before you apply

USDA loans are an underutilized resource for housing affordability. But before you start shopping for a new home, there are some important things to keep in mind.

USDA loans come with maximum household income limits

In most standard-cost areas across the U.S., the 2026 income limit is capped at $122,800 for households up to four members and $162,100 for households with five to eight members. In areas where the cost of living is higher — for example, counties neighboring high-cost metro areas like Monterey in northern California and exurban areas of New York and New Jersey — the income caps may exceed $150,000 to $200,000 for larger families.

Buyers need to keep in mind the “everyone counts” rule, which calculates eligibility based on the total income of all adult residents. That means adult children with incomes and potential room mates also add to the maximum income calculation.

Properties come with conditions attached

Despite being issued by the Department of Agriculture, you can’t use a standard USDA loan to buy a working farm.

These loans are for primary residences only — no vacation homes, second homes, investment properties or properties for commercial income producing activities are allowed. According to a 2025 analysis by BatchData, “89.6% of single-family rentals are held by ‘mom-and-pop’ landlords,” some of whom are “accidental landlords” as they turned a starter home into a rental or jumped on the Airbnb bandwagon and started renting out a room in their residence.

While you can rent out a USDA-backed property after you have lived in the home as your primary residence for a significant period (typically at least 12 months), renting it out immediately or buying it with the intent to rent is considered mortgage fraud.

You also can’t buy a “fixer-upper” home with a standard USDA loan. Before you’re approved, an appraiser must certify that the property is safe and structurally sound. Issues like a failing roof, electrical or structural issues will require repairs before your loan is approved.

Zero-down mortgage doesn’t mean you won’t owe money at closing

Though the USDA provides an enormous financial benefit to borrowers by allowing them to finance the entire cost of their home, that doesn’t mean you won’t have to pay any money before you take possession of the house.

To keep the program funded, the USDA charges two mandatory “guarantee fees”: the first is an upfront 1% fee based on your total loan amount; the second is a 0.35% annual fee based on the principal balance. For example, a house that costs $350,000 will have a $3,500 up-front fee assessed and will be charged the $1,225 annual fee. This latter fee is divided by 12 and added to your mortgage statement. It also decreases every month as you pay down the principal.

The bottom line

For homebuyers without a large down payment saved up, the USDA loan is a great opportunity to buy a home and start building equity. If you meet the conditions and you find a property within the guidelines, a USDA loan can save you thousands of dollars.

While it does come with some restrictions, the payoff is the ability to bypass the years of saving typically required for a standard down payment. By allowing you to keep your cash for other expenses, this underutilized program provides a vital financial cushion. 

For those willing to cast their house-hunting net just a few miles further from the city center, a USDA loan isn’t just an alternative financing option, it’s a realistic bridge over the affordability gap and a direct path to building long-term wealth.

https://nypost.com/real-estate/what-is-usda-loan-eligibility-requirements/

NYC homelessness reaches 5-year high

 Homelessness on New York City’s streets reached an alarming five-year high amid socialist Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s still-fledgling term, data released Thursday shows.

Nearly 5,000 unsheltered people were estimated to be living on streets, parks, under highways, and in subways and public transit stations across the city during an annual survey conducted in March, according to the Mayor’s Management Report.

That is up 11% compared to fiscal year 2025 — and an astounding 45% surge from fiscal year 2022.

3

A homeless man panhandles on University Place at Union Square in New York, Thursday, February 19, 2026.Helayne Seidman for the NY Post

3

A homeless person sleeps under a blanket to keep warm on W35th Street in New York.Christopher Sadowski for NY Post
The worrisome findings from the Homeless Outreach Population Estimate are not only buried near the end of a section on homelessness, but seemingly waved off as a weather-related aberration.

“While the HOPE survey is typically conducted in late January, this year’s effort was postponed until March due to historic winter weather,” the report states.

3

A homeless person stands on a street in Manhattan.Getty Images

“Ultimately, the average temperature on the day the survey was conducted—March 10—was nearly 60 degrees, the highest ever on the day of the survey and about 20 degrees above recent years.”

The data shows street homelessness has increased during each survey since the 2022 fiscal year, when former mayor Eric Adams was in office.

https://nypost.com/2026/09/18/us-news/nyc-homelessness-reaches-alarming-5-year-high-in-damning-indictment-on-lefty-policies-report/

USC, UCLA Study: 2028 Olympics Could Uproot 1000s Of 'Unhoused' People

 by College Fix Staff via The College Fix,

Even if they're relocated it 'can still carry serious consequences'...

According to a recent study by researchers at USC and UCLA, Los Angeles' hosting of the 2028 Summer Olympics could result in the "displacement" of thousands of "unhoused" individuals.

As reported by the Daily Trojan, Los Angeles county estimates that security perimeters established by the U.S. Secret Service will lead to approximately 1,600 "unsheltered" people not having access to where they currently reside.

The study from the two southern California universities puts the figure closer to almost four times that number.

Benjamin Henwood, a USC social policy and health professor and director of its Center for Homelessness, Housing and Health Equity Research, said "It's closer to 6,000 people. I don't know how [county officials] came up with their numbers, so they might be looking at something a little different or more specific."

Henwood also is a curator at Home 2028, an "independent research hub" which studies how the homeless will be affected by the Olympics, according to the Trojan.

During the last Summer Olympics held in the city (1984), law enforcement utilized "large-scale and aggressive sweeps" to get the homeless away from "highly visible tourist areas."

From the article:

LA28, the independent nonprofit organization responsible for planning and delivering the Games, is deferring to city officials for managing the relocation. Under an agreement with the city council, LA28 is expected to fund game-related services that go above "normal and customary."

County officials said they intend to offer at least temporary housing for the unhoused population and have applied for nearly $93 million from the state to support the process. A portion of these funds would also be directed toward the county's Pathway Home model, which moves people into interim housing.

Beyond the final headcount, a critical question lies in exactly how these individuals will be cleared from the secured areas.

Henwood said even if the homeless are relocated it "can still carry serious consequences" such as "poor health outcomes."

USC Public Policy and Management professor David Brady, who researches poverty, social policy, racial inequality, and immigration according to his faculty page, said the upcoming Olympics "should not be the only reason the city invests in and provides housing for unhoused residents."

"If we can [provide housing] during COVID, or we [are hoping to] do it during the Olympics, why can't we do it otherwise?" Brady said. "We have the resources to do it otherwise. And so I would argue we should."

Henwood added "We all know that there's a homelessness crisis [...] it's like, well, what is the plan in general?"

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/usc-ucla-study-2028-olympics-could-uproot-1000s-unhoused-people

The Fed's Mortgage Policy Made Homeownership Cost More

 by Antón Chamberlin via The Daily Economy,

The median household in Miami earns about $62,000 annually; homeowners with a mortgage have monthly housing costs pushing $2,900. Annualized, this equals more than half the median household income. In Los Angeles, the numbers come in at $82,000 and $3,500 for 51 percent. New Yorkers are paying 49 percent, and New Orleanians are paying 47 percent of their annual income on housing.

Different coasts, different housing markets, different incomes, regulations, and supply constraints. And all of these cities illustrate a national reality that seems beyond dispute: housing has become extraordinarily expensive.

Lest these cities appear cherry-picked, let us consider Harvard's 2026 State of the Nation's Housing report. Existing-home sales are at a three-decade low. Meanwhile, median new and existing home prices exceed $400,000. Prices for the latter are now 54 percent higher than in 2020, nearly five times median household income.

Financially, mortgage rates sit above 6 percent. By late 2025, the monthly cost of the median-priced home reached roughly $3,100, requiring an annual income above $120,000 to afford it, compared with about $1,700 and $66,000, respectively, in early 2020.

This bleak picture is obviously the product of many factors. One, however, was the Federal Reserve's intervention in the housing market. During the COVID lockdown era, the Fed entered the mortgage market on a massive scale, helping push borrowing costs to historic lows. But its intervention did more than simply lower mortgage rates. It also affected households differently, creating benefits for those already in the housing market while making entry more difficult for those who were not.

The Fed's mortgage-backed-security (MBS) purchases helped capitalize cheap credit into higher home prices, which enriched current homeowners, all the while increasing the costs of entry for prospective buyers. Then, when the Fed raised rates to fight inflation, those same outsiders faced both higher prices and higher financing costs.

Beginning in March 2020, the Fed purchased trillions of MBSs, with Agency MBS holdings rising 93 percent in about two years, reaching $2.7 trillion by mid-2022. The Fed's immediate objective was seemingly achieved. Mortgage rates fell to historic lows, which the Dallas Fed explicitly laid at the feet of the Fed's MBS purchases.

Economic consequences, however, as Bastiat and Hazlitt showed for decades, extend beyond the short-run and the targeted groups. Cheaper mortgages increased households' purchasing power and contributed to greater housing demand, placing upward pressure on prices in a market where supply could not quickly adjust. Once inflation arrived, the Fed raised rates, causing this double whammy for would-be buyers. This had important distributional consequences.

At its peak, the Fed owned 32 percent of the entire agency MBS market. These purchases resulted in MBS prices rising and their yields falling, causing mortgage spreads to tighten. This tightening pushed mortgage rates down, allowing buyers to finance larger principal balances. Expanded borrowing opened up possibilities for buyers, further fueling housing demand. With the housing supply unable to sufficiently catch up to the new demand, the financial benefits were met with higher prices on the existing housing supply.

These results were not uniform, however. As with other exercises of monetary policy, where money enters matters.

The Cantillon Effect Comes Home

As Nicolás Cachanosky explains, new money does not enter an economy everywhere, and certainly not simultaneously. Fed actions consist of particular injections at particular points, then following particular paths. It is punctiliar by nature, and this results in changing relative prices, which benefit earlier recipients before prices have adjusted to the intervention. In this context, the relevant "early recipients" do not necessarily receive literal new money, but the injection in question occurs in financial markets closely connected to mortgage credit.

Households can be divided into at least two groups: incumbent owners and prospective buyers, both of whom experience the Fed policy differently. Incumbent owners already possess an appreciating asset, with the potential to refinance at the initial lower rate, seeing their home equity rise. Prospective buyers, by contrast, possess no appreciating asset; therefore, they see their desired homes become more expensive. The same appreciation that increases an incumbent homeowner's net worth increases the price of entry for everyone still trying to buy.

Beginning in 2022, the Fed changed direction. But tightening does not just unwind the past. Homeowners who had purchased or refinanced at historically low rates could keep those mortgages, while new buyers faced even higher rates. The Fed noticed this "lock-in" effect. By June 2024, more than 90 percent of its MBS holdings had coupons below 4 percent.

The Fed's policy can be broken down into two segments, then. During the easing period, low rates and rising prices fed equity gains for homeowning incumbents. Then, the tightening led to a lock-in of those owners at the previously lower rates, as outsiders saw higher rates. And, of course, first-time buyers typically possess neither asset: the equity nor the existing low-rate mortgage to offset these higher financing costs.

A Federal Reserve study from 2023 documented this phenomenon. A one-percentage-point increase in mortgage rates reduced the share of low- and moderate-income homebuyers by about 7.5 percent, with low-income buyers falling by 16 percent. These effects were even larger for first-time buyers. There was also little evidence of larger down payments to counteract the rising rates, suggesting that many could not substitute savings for the higher monthly payment. Evidence also suggests that loose monetary policy passing through to mortgage rates negatively affects family formation and fertility rates.

In total, then, we see the following. Lower rates create unequal access to cheap credit, and the subsequent higher rates affected buyers disparately. The Fed changed not only the cost of financing a house, but the composition of participants in the market. Interest rate policy altered who could buy.

America now has expensive housing, huge mortgages, fewer purchases, declining homeownership, and a growing segment of the population crowded out. At the very least, the Fed exacerbated this from 2020-2022. The broader lesson here is that monetary policy does not change interest rates or prices in isolation. Money always enters particular markets, changes particular relative prices, and creates particular winners and losers. In this instance, the Fed inflated the price of a scarce asset (appreciation for current homeowners). Once the subsidy was removed, the wealth redistribution it caused did not reverse. The consequence is our current state - not just housing inflation, but a higher price of entry.

https://www.zerohedge.com/personal-finance/feds-mortgage-policy-made-homeownership-cost-more

NYC agrees to pay $60M to property owners whose buildings seized in program Mamdani vows to revive

 The Big Apple has agreed to pay $60 million to property owners whose buildings were seized under a controversial city program that Mayor Zohran Mamdani has vowed to revive.

Under the settlement agreement filed in Manhattan federal court Friday, owners of 64 properties seized by the city over unpaid tax debts will receive the payouts, nearly a decade after the class-action lawsuit was filed.

“We’re grateful to be able to finally give some relief to some of these families,” said Sara Kane, one of the attorneys representing the homeowners.

The plaintiffs argued that the properties were seized without “just compensation,” in violation of their constitutional rights — and alleged the city never notified them that their homes were being seized, according to the suit filed in 2019.

The settlement — one of the largest in the last decade by the city — comes as the Mamdani administration looks to revive the program as part of the mayor’s “Fix the City” housing plan.

Under the “Third Party Transfer” program, ownership of buildings that have racked up housing code violations and owe taxes or other debts to the city can be transferred to a nonprofit. That organization then finds an affordable housing developer to take the property over — for no charge and with the debt forgiven. 

But court documents claim that often, the seized real estate was worth well over what the homeowner owed in taxes.

“They could have been $1,000 behind on a million dollar property, and they could have gotten seized,” said Alex Simkin, another attorney repping the homeowners.

One of the lead plaintiffs, retired ambulance driver McConnell Dorce, lost the East Flatbush, Brooklyn apartment building that he’d owned since 1977 to the TPT program due to outstanding water and sewage bills.

Dorce — who owned the building outright “free and clear of any mortgage”– had even entered into a repayment plan with the city over the debt, his attorney said. 

The city nonetheless seized his home without notice — even as it continued to receive his payments, according to court documents.

Dorce, whose property was part of the announced settlement, died in February.

“It’s heartwrenching,” said Kane, “and it’s particularly heart wrenching that Mr. Dorce didn’t live to see the outcome of this case.”

While some of the owners were allowed to continue living in their homes as tenants, others — like Dorce — were not permitted to return once the developer took the property over, the plaintiff attorneys said.

The suit also claimed Third Party Transfer unfairly targeted minority communities, a longtime accusation made by critics of the program, launched in 1996 under then-Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

“These are families that were really working towards generational wealth.” Kane said. “It was  literally taken out from under them, and they were given nothing for it.”

A City Hall spokesperson said the program — which has effectively been on pause since 2019 — doesn’t evict residents and that they are allowed to remain in their homes at affordable rents.

“The City maintains that the transfer of properties did not violate the former property owners’ rights, but the City is settling to resolve this longstanding litigation,” said Andrew Stern, spokesman for the city’s Department of Housing Preservation and Development.

Stern said that any revival of the TPT program would be conducted “in a way that addresses the concerns outlined in these suits.”

The settlement would cover the most recent group of properties seized in 2019. But more than 500 other properties remain as part of the class-action suit, according to attorneys for the plaintiffs.

“We hope that the court system allows for the rest of the rounds to have a similar result,” Kane said.

https://nypost.com/2026/09/15/us-news/nyc-agrees-to-shell-out-60m-to-property-owners-whose-buildings-were-seized-under-program-mamdani-vows-to-revive/

Ryan Serhant on what’s missing from America’s migration story: 'Stealth' states beating Florida, Texas

 National coverage of American migration routinely focuses on political rhetoric and people fleeing to states like Florida and Texas, but it may be overlooking the core economic realities dictating where families and capital actually settle.

In an interview with Fox News Digital, SERHANT. founder and CEO Ryan Serhant argued that the missing piece of the migration story boils down to how state policies impact homebuyers' wallets and quality of life. Rather than a total collapse of major metros, Serhant said, capital is stretching into secondary markets where better job growth, lower tax burdens and strong infrastructure offer a better return on investment.

"I think it's a bit overblown that wealth is migrating out of major American cities. I think that people aren't necessarily moving as much as they are multiplying," Serhant told Fox News Digital. "We now have more clients that have multiple homes than at any other point in my career. And they all want ease of access to great cities without necessarily maybe paying to be in the center."

"If you look at the American housing market just through the news media, you would think that the American city is over, the metropolis is dead, and people are scattering. And what you actually see is wealth multiplying to the benefit of both the individuals and the real estate assets. And stretching. Markets have actually just become bigger," he continued. "People are multiplying their assets, and they want to be where they want to be, and are willing to stretch the boundary. It's not so much, ‘people escaping.’"

Serhant recently expanded his brokerage into Texas and Colorado, after the firm's Texas launch marked its expansion into its 17th state. Outside his New York City home base, SERHANT. also has a presence in major luxury enclaves in South Florida, such as Palm Beach and Miami, where luxury prices have climbed sharply, while the brokerage also operates in Delray Beach, Boca Raton and Fort Lauderdale.

At the same time, Serhant pointed to regional migration patterns showing growth in inland hubs, including Huntsville, Alabama.

According to U.S. Census estimates, Texas and Florida were the nation's top two states for numeric population growth from 2024 to 2025, while a number of secondary markets have also posted strong gains. The Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia metro area ranked fifth nationally for numeric population growth from 2024 to 2025, while the city of Huntsville, Alabama, has grown 8.7% since 2020.

"I think New York did lose about 12,000 residents last year. And I think that that isn't a crisis, but I think it's definitely a warning sign," Serhant said. "And I also think people would be surprised to know that Florida… I think actually is the No. 8 state in terms of domestic net migration last year, bumped out by Alabama."

"You want to know a market I think people will be talking about in five years? I think it's Huntsville, Alabama. I think Huntsville, Alabama, and I think Central Ohio and Charlotte, North Carolina, are three markets that investors are paying a lot of attention to right now that more people should be talking about," he added.

AWS has committed an additional $10 billion toward data center infrastructure in Ohio, bringing its planned data center investment in the state to more than $23 billion by 2030. Meanwhile, Intel broke ground on its more than $28 billion semiconductor campus in New Albany, Ohio, representing the single largest private-sector investment in state history. Intel has since slowed construction, with the first factory currently expected to begin operations between 2030 and 2031.

"You go to Ohio and you look around, and there are more very expensive cars than you'll see in South Beach. But no one talks about it… Again, it's not the fall of the American city, it's the stretch of what it means to be a great American dream city, and there's not going to be less of them, there's just going to be more."

High-earning households are treating residential real estate selection similarly to portfolio management, according to Serhant. He said some buyers are acquiring multiple homes to secure geographic flexibility, capture regional tax benefits and maintain access to major economic centers without shouldering full-time downtown living costs.

"Why own one stock if you can own an ETF? Why own one home if you could own a couple? There's only so many of them. And they're not making any more land as far as I know," he said.

"Taxes get headlines. New governance policies get headlines, and it's easy to sell against fear. I mean, to be honest, our markets south of New York have benefited greatly from the COVID policies that [Gov. Andrew] Cuomo instilled across New York State and the policies that [Mayor Zohran] Mamdani is now putting into place in New York City. I don't necessarily think they're to the detriment of New York long-term. I think New York is irreplaceable, but it's not necessarily invincible," Serhant expanded.

"And so, just like companies do, if you have restrictions on employees [in] one company, really smart people at that company might say, ‘You know what? Maybe I'll look for other jobs. Where can I have the greatest career?’ And they look at other companies. Those companies are states. American citizens are employees at the end of the day… What you should be thinking about is, how do I create the greatest business for people to come and work? Instead of — how do I take from everyone who's here to maybe the betterment of the current market environment?" he posited.

"And I think New York, I think Seattle, I think a lot of parts of California are taking a short-term view on state growth. And I think it's frustrating."

He also argued that municipal leaders focused on election-cycle politics rather than long-term growth plans risk pushing away the next generation of business creators.

"I just think about the future far more than I think current politicians who are very, very focused on the next election do," the CEO said. "And I think if you create an environment that provides less jobs, less education, and worse security and safety for tomorrow's great entrepreneur or intrapreneur or worker or creative or artist? That person's not moving, their parents move. Again, to the betterment of Ohio, Alabama and North Carolina."

Serhant argued that in today's hyper-connected economy, capital can move rapidly and high earners have greater geographic flexibility, making local friction and unfavorable fiscal policy potential threats to a state's economic competitiveness.

"You buy based on the street corner... Investors and people who have the ability to move are now thinking about stretched markets. They don't necessarily need to come to your city for a job. They don't necessarily need to go to that state for grade schooling," Serhant explained. "The economy is global and it moves in milliseconds. And the minute you start to think that it's still 1997 is the minute the history books on the fall of what, I think, is the great American dream start to be written."

For states like Ohio, Alabama and North Carolina, winning over capital isn't just about lowering taxes but also about striking a balance between financial incentives and overall community appeal, Serhant said.

"I think Alabama, Ohio, and North Carolina understand that people move with their wallet, yes, so how do we keep quality of housing and affordability front of mind, but also with their heart?" Serhant said. "What do you do on the nights and on the weekends? How easy is it to get here and have our family come and stay? And then they think about public infrastructure, they think about education, and they think about security."

Looking ahead, Serhant said he believes the center of gravity in American real estate will continue shifting inland toward states he views as business-friendly, with abundant land and infrastructure capacity.

"It's New York or nowhere as the epicenter, in part because our business is so global… But if I had to throw a dart on where I think the epicenter of the country might be eventually, I might think about coastal erosion and I might go dead center. And I think there's a lot of opportunity in Ohio. Maybe we should open SERHANT. in Ohio? I'm talking myself into it right now."

https://www.foxbusiness.com/real-estate/ryan-serhant-reveals-whats-missing-americas-migration-story-stealth-states-beating-florida-texas