Illinois among states where taxes and insurance add heavily to homeowner costs

Several Illinois metro areas rank among the highest in the country for taxes and insurance as a share of housing costs. Decatur, Peoria and Rockford all appeared in the top 10 of the new report.

COLUMBIA, MO - Homebuyers often focus on home prices and mortgage interest rates when calculating affordability, but a new analysis suggests two other costs are quietly pushing monthly housing payments higher: property taxes and homeowners insurance.

According to a report released March 4 by Neighbors Bank, taxes and insurance now account for an average of 21% of a homeowner’s monthly mortgage payment nationwide. The study, titled The “Hidden” Costs Causing Monthly Housing Payments To Rise, examined nearly 450 metropolitan areas and calculated typical payments using a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage at 6.59% interest.

Photo: Yan Krukau/PEXELS

Looking at buying a home? New home buyers should also pay attention to taxes and insurance in determining monthly budgets after the purchase.

Mortgage payments are commonly described using the acronym PITI — principal, interest, taxes and insurance. While principal and interest make up the core loan payment, taxes and insurance are typically collected through an escrow account and added to the monthly bill. Those costs can rise even when a homeowner’s mortgage rate stays the same.

“It’s important to look beyond the sticker price and understand how taxes and insurance will shape your monthly payment,” said Jake Vehige, president of mortgage lending at Neighbors Bank. “They’re recurring costs that need to be planned for from day one.”

The report found that in some areas, non-mortgage costs make up more than one-third of the total housing payment. In the highest-burden markets, taxes and insurance significantly increase the overall cost of homeownership.

Several Illinois communities rank among those with the largest share of taxes and insurance in monthly housing payments. The metro area around Decatur ranked second nationally, where taxes and insurance account for about 37.4% of the typical monthly payment. In that market, the average principal-and-interest payment is about $598 per month, while taxes and insurance add roughly $357, bringing the total payment to about $955.

Top 10 Highest-Burden Markets

Rank	Metro Area	T&I Share of Avg. Monthly Housing Payment	Avg. Monthly P&I	Avg. Monthly T&I	Total Avg. Monthly Payment (PITI)
1	Pensacola-Ferry Pass-Brent, Fla.	43.6 %	$1,531	$1,183	$2,714
2	Decatur, Ill.	37.4 %	$598	$357	$955
3	Massena-Ogdensburg, N.Y.	36.5 %	$690	$397	$1,088
4	Peoria, Ill.	35.7 %	$823	$458	$1,281
5	Wichita Falls, Texas	34.9 %	$863	$462	$1,324
6	Elmira, N.Y.	34.3 %	$760	$398	$1,157
7	Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach	34.3 %	$2,383	$1,244	$3,627
8	Corning, N.Y.	34.0 %	$818	$421	$1,239
9	Rockford, Ill.	33.9 %	$1,048	$537	$1,585
10	Pine Bluff, Ark.	33.9 %	$494	$253	$747

Two other Illinois metro areas — Peoria and Rockford — also ranked among the top 10 nationally for the share of housing payments driven by taxes and insurance. Analysts said Illinois appears frequently in the rankings largely because of higher property tax rates compared with many other states.

In contrast, some of the nation’s most expensive housing markets show a smaller share of monthly payments coming from taxes and insurance. In Honolulu, for example, those costs account for about 9% of the average monthly mortgage payment. The lower share is attributed to Hawaii’s relatively low property tax rates and stable insurance costs.

Taxes and insurance can also create surprises for homeowners over time. Many first-time buyers rely on government-backed mortgage programs that require escrow accounts. Those accounts collect property taxes and insurance premiums as part of the monthly mortgage payment.

Because those costs can change from year to year, a fixed-rate mortgage does not always mean a fixed monthly payment. Lenders conduct annual escrow reviews, adjusting the monthly payment if taxes or insurance premiums increase. If prior payments were too low to cover rising costs, borrowers may also need to pay an escrow shortfall.

Vehige said homeowners can take steps to manage the risk of rising costs, including reviewing escrow statements annually, shopping for insurance coverage and appealing property tax assessments when appropriate.

“Many homeowners assume their payment will stay the same each year, but even if your mortgage rate doesn’t change, taxes and insurance often do,” Vehige said. “Understanding those costs can help prevent surprises and keep your budget on track.”

TAGS: how property taxes affect monthly mortgage payments, homeowners insurance impact on mortgage costs, hidden costs of homeownership taxes and insurance, Illinois property taxes and housing affordability, why mortgage payments increase with escrow adjustments

The pros and cons of buying a move-in-ready home

One of the most notable advantages of buying a move-in-ready home is the time savings. Buyers pay for convenience, and that typically means a higher cost per square foot than homes that need work.

Photo: JamesDeMers/Pixabay

by Casey Cartwright
Contributing Writer

In today’s housing market, buyers in Champaign County and beyond face tough choices. Among the most pivotal is whether to purchase a move-in-ready home or take on a property that needs renovations. For many, the promise of a turnkey solution outweighs the charm of a fixer-upper.

Across Illinois, turnkey properties that promise convenience and efficiency draw many families and individuals who juggle busy schedules. A move-in-ready home means fewer disruptions and more opportunities to focus on what matters most. Keep reading to learn more about the pros and cons of buying a move-in-ready home.

The Advantages of Simplicity and Speed

One of the most notable advantages of buying a move-in-ready home is the time savings. Buyers can frequently close and move in within weeks, avoiding the months-long process of renovations and contractor coordination. These homes typically come with modern updates, including new appliances, energy-efficient systems, and up-to-date design features. This can lower utility bills and guard against maintenance surprises, a strong selling point for middle-aged buyers who prioritize both comfort and practicality.

The predictability of a move-in-ready property offers peace of mind not typically found in older, unrenovated homes. One of the premier benefits of buying a move-in-ready home is no costly surprises with pre-inspections. When you buy the home, it’s ready as a living space—you don’t have to worry about expensive issues like electrical wiring problems, plumbing leaks, or structural damage.

Financial Predictability in an Unpredictable Market

Beyond convenience, move-in-ready homes offer a clearer financial picture. The asking price usually reflects the full value of the finished property, which helps buyers avoid the cost overruns common with renovations. For residents of Champaign County managing budgets that have to deal with inflation and fluctuating property taxes, this transparency is a welcome relief. It allows for better planning and less anxiety during an already high-stakes transaction.

Lenders also tend to favor move-in-ready homes. Financing options are more straightforward, and appraisals are generally easier to justify for an updated, code-compliant home. In a competitive market, where speed can make or break a deal, a move-in-ready option may offer the edge.

Location and Lifestyle Considerations

Move-in-ready homes are frequently in established neighborhoods, offering the added benefit of community stability. Buyers looking to integrate quickly into local schools, civic organizations, or faith communities may find this particularly appealing. In smaller towns within Champaign County, where local identity runs deep, joining an established block can foster a strong sense of belonging. Proximity to amenities like parks, libraries, and locally owned shops further enhances the experience.

Lifestyle matters, too. For buyers who prioritize evenings spent at high school football games, weekends visiting state parks, or attending town hall meetings, taking on a renovation project is a huge burden on their free time and bank accounts. A move-in-ready home supports an active lifestyle by removing the demands of ongoing home improvements from the equation. Instead, homeowners get to involve themselves in the community immediately, rather than focusing all their time and energy on remodels and updates.

The Hidden Trade-Offs

While we’ve mostly focused on the pros of buying a move-in-ready home so far, there are also cons. One downside of a move-in-ready purchase is the price premium. Buyers pay for convenience, and that typically means a higher cost per square foot than homes that need work. In a market where affordability is a growing concern, this can limit choices or push some buyers to stretch their budgets.

Another potential drawback is the lack of customization. With renovations, homeowners can tailor the property to their specific tastes and needs. Move-in-ready homes, by contrast, reflect someone else’s design decisions. While finishes are likely to be neutral and modern, they may not reflect the buyer’s personal style or long-term plans.

Limited Inventory, Higher Competition

Inventory remains tight in many parts of Illinois, and move-in-ready homes are in particularly high demand. This can create bidding wars, especially in desirable school districts or near local amenities. Buyers may find themselves compromising on size, layout, or location simply to secure a turnkey property. The emotional toll of repeated offers and outbidding can wear on even the most determined house hunters.

In some cases, sellers of move-in-ready homes may be less flexible during negotiations. Because many perceive these homes as more desirable, there's less incentive for the seller to lower the asking price or include additional concessions. For buyers who value negotiation leverage, this dynamic can be frustrating. The sense of urgency can also cause rushed decisions that may not fully align with long-term goals.

Reflecting on Community Needs

Champaign County’s housing market reflects broader statewide trends, but local values still play a role in shaping buyer behavior. A sense of stability, pride in homeownership, and a desire to invest in long-term community well-being guide many purchasing decisions. For those who value their neighborhood connections as much as square footage, move-in-ready homes can provide a smoother path to rooted living. A strong housing foundation can lead to greater civic participation and neighborhood pride.

Moreover, the advocacy for quality of life in Central Illinois starts at home. Residents who feel comfortable and secure in their living spaces are more likely to engage civically, volunteer locally, and support small businesses. A move-in-ready home can serve as a catalyst for deeper community involvement. It can also offer a platform for hosting neighborhood events, engaging with local schools, and participating in the democratic process.

Making the Right Decision

Ultimately, the choice between a move-in-ready home and a fixer-upper depends on individual priorities. Buyers must weigh convenience against customization, and short-term savings against long-term value. The simplicity of move-in readiness allows for smoother transitions, especially for those navigating career shifts or caring for aging parents. While there are valid reasons to consider homes that need work—especially for those with a background in construction or design—the broader market trend leans toward simplicity and ease.

As local families continue to seek balance between personal and professional lives, the move-in-ready model remains a compelling solution. This approach reflects a larger cultural emphasis on time, energy, and emotional bandwidth. Prospective buyers should take the time to evaluate their tolerance for risk, timelines, and financial flexibility. Talking to local realtors, neighbors, and mortgage advisors can help clarify which option fits best.

Looking Ahead

The dynamics of Illinois’ housing market will continue to evolve. However, the value of a home that offers immediate comfort, reliable systems, and a ready-made sense of place is unlikely to diminish. For Champaign County residents navigating complex real estate decisions, move-in-ready homes offer not just shelter, but stability.

In the end, home is more than just walls and windows. It’s where lives unfold, routines take root, and community connections begin. For many, that journey starts not with a hammer and nails, but with a key in the door and a welcome mat already waiting. It’s about stepping into a life that feels both secure and full of possibility—a place to thrive, grow, and belong.

Casey Cartwright is a passionate copyeditor highly motivated to provide compelling SEO content in the digital marketing space. Her expertise includes a vast range of industries from highly technical, consumer, and lifestyle-based, with an emphasis on attention to detail and readability.

TAGS: Housing market in Champaign-Urbana, Available homes for sale are limited in today's market, Move-in ready hoomes are found in better neighborhood, The Pros of buying a move-in ready home,

Viewpoint |
Trump is gutting affordable housing, advocates are pushing for solutions

Experts warn that proposed work requirements and budget cuts to HUD programs could strip families of rental assistance and permanent housing benefits.

by Farrah Hassen
OtherWords

President Trump isn’t only bulldozing the East Wing of the White House with the help of his billionaire friends. The former developer is also taking a wrecking ball to affordable housing.

Amid historically high housing costs, declining wages, and record homelessness, the Trump administration is upending longstanding federal housing policy that serves the nation’s poorest residents. That could be especially devastating in Illinois, which has among the highest rates of homelessness in the country according to federal data.

Housing and Urban Development (HUD) assistance programs support over 8 million people — mostly seniors, those with disabilities, and families with children — by providing public housing units or rental subsidies. This assistance has also been shown to improve food security and nutrition for low-income households.

However, ProPublica reports that the Trump administration is planning changes that could take away this support from millions.

One proposed regulation would allow local housing authorities — and even private landlords — to impose work requirements and time limits on public housing and vouchers for families without an elderly or disabled head of household.

While the administration claims this rule would promote “self-sufficiency,” advocates like the National Housing Law Project’s Deborah Thrope argue that these work requirements are actually “a way to strip families of their benefits.”

Most non-elderly, non-disabled households who receive assistance already include at least one person who works. And there’s little evidence that arbitrary time limits or work requirements help move people off subsidies. They certainly don’t make housing more affordable.

This draft rule reflects the Trump administration’s larger approach to housing: Punishing those in need but failing to address affordability — the primary driver of homelessness.

Today, a person who works full-time at minimum wage cannot afford a safe place to live almost anywhere in the country. Many are forced to rely on safety net programs — like rental assistance, SNAP, and Medicaid — that Trump is slashing to prioritize tax breaks for billionaires.

Already, Trump’s 2026 budget proposes to cut federal rental assistance by a devastating 43 percent. The administration is also seeking to dramatically cut federal funds for permanent housing to prevent homelessness.

According to internal HUD documents obtained by Politico, the department intends to cap 2026 funding for permanent housing projects, cutting spending by over half and moving funds instead to transitional housing assistance with work or service requirements.

If implemented, these cuts could result in over 170,000 people losing housing assistance and falling into homelessness. Without permanent housing and supportive services, which evidence has repeatedly shown is the most effective way to solve homelessness, more people will end up being shuffled between temporary shelters or forced to live on the streets.

Investing in temporary shelter over permanent housing is wasteful and ineffective. It’s a Band-Aid for our country’s larger failure to ensure adequate housing as a human right and a basic need for all people.

In fact, Trump’s gutting of housing assistance, Medicaid, and SNAP directly violates our rights to housing, health care, and food, which are all recognized under international law as among the universal human rights that governments must protect. These are not bargaining chips to be used and abused by out-of-touch politicians.

Our government refuses to recognize these rights because, under our current economic system, the wealthy see social goods like housing as commodities to be bought up at the expense of working people.

We can overcome these policy choices that favor the wealthy by demanding that our government invest in social programs through taxing the rich.

We should double down on real housing solutions, like increasing federal rental subsidies and enhancing tenant protections. We also need publicly funded housing (or “social housing”) that exists outside the private market and remains permanently affordable.

In the world’s wealthiest nation, our needs and fundamental human rights should never be defunded or negotiated away to subsidize billionaires, the bloated $1 trillion Pentagon budget, and earmarks for a cruel mass deportation and detention system.

The foundation for our nation’s housing policies should be built on the human right to housing, not the private profit of billionaires and real estate speculators.

OtherWords columnist Farrah Hassen, J.D., is a writer, policy analyst, and educator. This op-ed was distributed by OtherWords.org.

TAGS: Trump housing policy, affordable housing cuts, HUD rental assistance, homelessness crisis, federal housing proposals

Illinois House passes three bills, including measure to limit landlord fees

There was heated debate when lawmakers took up House Bill 3527 involving school mascots. Bill would prohibit schools from using a name, logo, or mascot that is derogatory or representative of a disabled individual or group.

Empty apartment — The Illinois House passed HB3564, which prohibits landlords from charge fees for the processing, reviewing, or accepting of an application, or demand any other payment, fee, or charge before or at the beginning of the tenancy. Landlords may not call the fee or charges something else to avoid application of these provisions. It also limits fees the total amount that can be collected for late fees.

By Kevin Bessler .::. Staff Reporter
The Center Square

SPRINGFIELD - It was a busy day for the Illinois House of Representatives Tuesday with a slew of bills passing through the chamber.

One measure, House Bill 3564, prohibits a landlord from imposing a move-in fee for renters. It also limits fees for the late payment of rent to a one-time $15 fee for every $1,500 of rent. Democratic state Rep. Rita Mayfield, D-Waukegan, said that amount is pointless.

“As a landlord, I’m going to tell you that $15 is not punitive enough to force anyone to pay their rent on time,” said Mayfield. “We have a lot of problems with individuals who don’t want to pay their rent and having the ability to charge a daily late fee actually spurs them to pay their rent.”

The measure passed by a vote of 61-43 and is headed to the Senate for consideration.

There was heated debate when lawmakers took up House Bill 3527 involving school mascots. State Rep. Maurice West’s bill would prohibit schools from using a name, logo, or mascot that is derogatory or representative of a disabled individual or group.

“This is something that is exploiting a community and if there is an inkling of injustice somewhere, there’s a threat to justice everywhere,” said West, D-Rockford.

The particular school that drew West’s ire is Freeburg High School and their mascot the “Midgets”, a community several hundred miles from his district. The school is located in state Rep. Kevin Schmidt’s district, who said the community is proud of the mascot.

“It’s going to blow up,” said Schmidt, R-Millstadt. “It’s not going to have the effect that you want. This is a local issue, the local school board should be voting on it, not the state overreaching.”

The measure passed 71-38 and if passed by the Senate, the law would require schools to adopt a new mascot by Sept. 1st, 2028.

The House also approved the Illinois Sexual Assault Survivor Treatment Act in House Bill 2805 sponsored by House Minority Leader Tony McCombie, R-Savanna, which prohibits insurance co-pays for sexual assault exams. The measure now heads to the Senate.

Commentary |
Basic human needs are not fair fame for billionaire tax cuts

It’s clear that this nation’s safety net has to be stronger so that people like me don’t fall through the cracks.

by Marisa Pesce

OtherWords

Tens of millions of Americans rely on the public assistance programs — like Medicaid, SNAP, housing aid, and more — that Republican leaders are now threatening to gut.

I’m one of them.

My dream is to regain the financial independence I once enjoyed before life and systemic obstacles got in the way. I come from a family with a history of mental illness and domestic abuse, and I’ve suffered through mental health challenges myself.

I’ve always worked hard. After high school, I earned a college degree and found the calling of being a teacher. I earned and paid for my Master’s degree while teaching full time as a high school math teacher. I still struggled with challenges, but life was good. The system had worked. I had a home and was financially independent.

I’ve had to rely on someone who participated in the domestic violence against me to help with rent.

Then, I was the victim of a major, life changing domestic violence event, and my life started to unwind. I had to relocate to another state where I didn’t have a place to call home, my benefits were less, and my mental illness was exacerbated by the isolation and trauma.

Despite the challenges I faced, I was able to find some needed assistance for food and mental health care as I got on my feet.

Also known as “food stamps,” the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) was a godsend for helping me put food on the table. Throughout my life both Medicaid and Medicare have helped with mental health treatment, and the Supplemental Security Disability Income (SSDI) program helped keep me out of poverty.

These are precisely the circumstances for which temporary assistance for basic needs like food, housing, and health care exists. But affordable housing was unavailable in my new home state, and SNAP benefits were much lower — even as my food needs stayed the same.

So my debts increased, and I’ve had to rely on someone who participated in the domestic violence against me to help with rent. I have a little income from SSDI, and I volunteer to stay engaged in my calling to teach and help others while I fight to recover from losing my home and my ability to keep up financially.

It’s clear that this nation’s safety net has to be stronger so that people like me don’t fall through the cracks. But House Republicans are currently trying to cut food assistance and other benefits, not strengthen them.

I just want to eat, get better, and afford safe housing so I can get back on my feet, back to financial independence, and back to doing all I can to help my community.

I need more help putting food on the table. But they’re proposing cuts to drastically reduce federal funding for SNAP, expand already harsh working requirements, and change how our need for healthy food is calculated, which is likely to slash benefits. And they’re doing it all to finance $4.5 trillion in tax breaks for corporations and the wealthiest.

I just want to eat, get better, and afford safe housing so I can get back on my feet, back to financial independence, and back to doing all I can to help my community. Yet I and millions like me are nothing but pawns in a political game that aims to hurt us and help those who already have wealth.

When I was teaching, I taught my students about fairness and equality — about what it means to live in a society where we look out for each other, where no one is left to be ill, unhoused, and hungry. I think some politicians need to go back to school, because they seem to have forgotten lessons like these.

So it’s our job to school them. We must let them know that basic human needs are not fair game for getting money for tax cuts for billionaires. Instead, our priorities should be healthy and safe communities for all.

About the author:
Marisa Pesce is a teacher, human rights consultant, anti-poverty advocate, and volunteer with RESULTS from Providence, Rhode Island. This op-ed was distributed by OtherWords.org.

Keywords:

Commentary |
Airbnb is driving up housing costs for all of us

In the early years, staying in other people’s houses felt like an act of rebellion against corporate hotel chains.

by Sonali Kolhatkar

Americans have been on a vacation binge since the easing of COVID-19 restrictions. In particular, the vacation rental company Airbnb is thriving. Late last year, the company posted its highest-ever profits.

Sonali Kolhatkar

Meanwhile cities are seeing rising rents, unaffordable home prices, and increased homelessness. Authorities are now linking these crises in part to Airbnb — and some now are passing strict regulations.

Just as companies like Uber were once touted as a way for working people with cars to earn a little extra spending cash, Airbnb offered the promise of supplementary income for those with an extra room or converted garage.

I’ve rented several Airbnb homes over the 15 years since the company was founded. In the early years, staying in other people’s houses felt like an act of rebellion against corporate hotel chains. The privacy, convenience, and often lower cost enabled tourists with tighter budgets to enjoy family vacations that otherwise might have been unavailable.

Now, however, the market is increasingly dominated by a small number of corporate “hosts” and professional property managers — wealthy elites and corporate entities that scoop up large numbers of properties and turn big profits by renting them out to travelers.

And that’s driving up housing costs for everyone.

Stephanie Synclair, a 41-year-old Black mom from Atlanta, recently made the news for becoming a home-buyer — not in her hometown, but in Palermo, Sicily.

In spite of having a budget of $450,000 — no small sum — Synclair had no luck buying a home in Atlanta, where properties are among the most overpriced in the nation. Atlanta’s housing market is dominated by investors and cash-rich corporations who scoop up practically every home listed at $500,000 or less, many of which are then transformed into Airbnb listings for tourists.

So Synclair now plans to retire in her $62,000 home on the other side of the planet instead.

"Staying in other people’s houses felt like an act of rebellion against corporate hotel chains," Kolhatkar said. Affordable, off-the-beaten path rentals once had their quirky charm until corporations invaded the short-term rental market.

Photo: Theo Rivierenlaan/Pixabay

A 2017 study of New York City by the watchdog group Inside Airbnb concluded that the Airbnb model also fuels racism in the housing market. “Across all 72 predominantly Black New York City neighborhoods,” the group found, “hosts are five times more likely to be white.” But the “loss of housing and neighborhood disruption due to Airbnb is six times more likely to affect Black residents.”

To curb such inequities, New York City, which already had strict rules about short-term rentals and subleases, passed a law in 2023 requiring Airbnb to ensure that hosts obtain permission to rent out housing. If it fails to do so, both the host and the company are hit with hefty fines.

While this means potentially higher hotel costs for out-of-town visitors, it could also free up rentals for long-term residents. According to The Guardian, this may already be happening, just months after the law went into effect in September.

While cheaper vacation stays are certainly desirable for those of us who love to travel, vacationing is a privilege in the U.S. More than a third of Americans, a 2023 survey found, are unlikely to take a summer vacation. And of those, more than half say they simply can’t afford it.

A 2019 Economic Policy Institute study pointed out that “Airbnb might, as claimed, suppress the growth of travel accommodation costs, but these costs are not a first-order problem for American families.” What is a first-order problem is affordable housing.

While regulating Airbnb will not mitigate all economic injustices facing Americans — such as suppressed wages and a lack of government-funded health care — it certainly will move the needle in the right direction.

Sonali Kolhatkar is the host of “Rising Up With Sonali,” a television and radio show on Free Speech TV and Pacifica stations. This commentary was produced by the Economy for All project at the Independent Media Institute and adapted for syndication by OtherWords.org.