Home values, gross rent, homeownership, housing cost burdens, and the pressure from prices and incomes.
Median owner-occupied home value$248.1K2020–2024 · #36 of 50 · highest first
Median gross rent$1.07K2020–2024 · #35 of 50 · highest first
Homeownership rate70%2020–2024 · #16 of 50 · highest first
New Mexico over time
Explore New Mexico readings, major events and reviewed actions on the same date scale. New Mexico officeholders appear in separate lanes. National event evidence describes national context; it does not measure a New Mexico effect.
Major events & context · A curated selection, including uncertain effects. Milestone dates do not establish that an event caused a New Mexico change.
Enacted / issuedDid not proceedPending / in progressStatus unclear
Colors show the latest recorded status. Passing one chamber is not enactment. A number groups actions with the same date, body and status.
Home-price growth since 2016 New Mexico · source units
New MexicoPublished U.S. benchmark
Move across the chart to inspect the nearest observation. Click or tap to keep a reading selected, or focus the chart and use the arrow keys. Hover over or focus a marker to explore; click or tap to pin. Press Escape to clear.
4 of 4 reviewed New Mexico actions match · 4 date markers shown. 26 major events shown separately.
New Mexico · 2025: +82.3% · Rank #30 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: Not available
FactVote averages the four quarterly, not-seasonally-adjusted FHFA all-transactions HPI observations for each year. It compares that series with BEA annual per-capita personal income distributed by FRED, then rebases both to 100 in 2016. This is a pressure indicator, not a home-price-to-income ratio and not a measure of monthly mortgage affordability. Both series are nominal; neither is adjusted for inflation. Per-capita personal income includes earnings, property income, and transfers and is not median household income. Annual observations use December 31; monthly observations use the first of the month. Lines connect consecutive readings and do not supply values between them. Missing observations break the lines.
View observations and export data
New Mexico Home-price growth since 2016 · source units
The timeline combines the corresponding national fact’s reviewed event catalog, labeled National context, with individually reviewed state milestones. State events use primary sources and distinguish signing, effective and filing dates. Each milestone keeps its source-check date, geographical limits and evidence limits. This curated selection is not a complete history.
Date ranges affect events and actions. Action type, status and official-name search affect government records only. Events remain separate from action counts. An event after the latest observation extends context without creating a new reading.
New Mexico · state comparison
Home values, rent, and homeownership
Census values are estimates for occupied housing, rather than current listing or sale prices.
New Mexico · 2020–2024$248,100
New Mexico rank#36among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark$332,700Same measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Median owner-occupied home value
Median reported value of owner-occupied housing.
2024 dollars; a higher value can benefit owners and make buying harder.
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. New Mexico stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. New Mexico has a dark outline.
Lower value · $162.6KHigher value · $839.1KStriped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
New Mexico · $248,1002020–2024 · Rank #36 of 50, highest firstSelected state
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare New Mexico with every state · 50 ranked
Median owner-occupied home value · 2020–2024 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
Hawaii
$839,100
—
#2
California
$734,700
—
#3
Washington
$564,600
—
#4
Massachusetts
$562,100
—
#5
Colorado
$539,400
—
#6
Utah
$489,400
—
#7
Oregon
$477,600
—
#8
New Jersey
$454,400
—
#9
Nevada
$435,400
—
#10
New York
$423,800
—
#11
Maryland
$419,900
—
#12
Idaho
$418,600
—
#13
Rhode Island
$404,200
—
#14
New Hampshire
$402,500
—
#15
Arizona
$394,500
—
#16
Virginia
$383,700
—
#17
Montana
$375,800
—
#18
Connecticut
$366,900
—
#19
Florida
$359,000
—
#20
Alaska
$352,900
—
#21
Delaware
$352,000
—
#22
Minnesota
$329,300
—
#23
Vermont
$316,600
—
#24
Wyoming
$309,700
—
#25
Georgia
$303,300
—
#26
Maine
$296,600
—
#27
North Carolina
$288,900
—
#28
Tennessee
$286,700
—
#29
Texas
$283,800
—
#30
Wisconsin
$266,500
—
#31
Illinois
$263,300
—
#32
South Carolina
$259,000
—
#33
South Dakota
$257,400
—
#34
Pennsylvania
$254,500
—
#35
North Dakota
$249,900
—
#36
New Mexico · your comparison
$248,100
—
#37
Nebraska
$238,600
—
#38
Michigan
$231,600
—
#39
Missouri
$230,300
—
#40
Indiana
$218,200
—
#41
Kansas
$217,200
—
#42
Louisiana
$216,500
—
#43
Ohio
$214,800
—
#44
Alabama
$209,900
—
#45
Iowa
$208,000
—
#46
Kentucky
$205,600
—
#47
Oklahoma
$199,800
—
#48
Arkansas
$188,000
—
#49
Mississippi
$169,800
—
#50
West Virginia
$162,600
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Median monthly gross rent for renter-occupied housing units paying cash rent, including contract rent plus estimated average utility and fuel costs paid by the renter.
This source snapshot keeps its own definition and period. A rank shown elsewhere applies only to that comparison’s measure and period.
Method and limitations
U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts, sourced from the American Community Survey 2020–2024 five-year estimate and expressed in 2024 dollars.
This is a multi-year statewide estimate, not a current asking-rent measure.
The median obscures differences by location, unit size, housing quality, and renter circumstances.
Compare moderate-or-severe and severe housing cost burdens for three distinct housing groups.
New Mexico · 2020–202450.2%
New Mexico rank#19among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark51.1%Same measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Renters · spending at least 30% of income
Housing costs as a share of household income, excluding households for which a ratio cannot be computed.
Renters and owners have separate denominators. Ratios use the Census computed-income universe.
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. New Mexico stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. New Mexico has a dark outline.
Lower value · 38.9%Higher value · 60.1%Striped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
New Mexico · 50.2%2020–2024 · Rank #19 of 50, highest firstSelected state
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare New Mexico with every state · 50 ranked
Renters · spending at least 30% of income · 2020–2024 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
Florida
60.1%
—
#2
Hawaii
56.7%
—
#3
Nevada
55.9%
—
#4
California
55.3%
—
#5
Louisiana
54.8%
—
#6
Colorado
52.9%
—
#7
Connecticut
52.6%
—
#8
Oregon
52.5%
—
#9
Georgia
52.4%
—
#10
South Carolina
52.1%
—
#11
New York
52.1%
—
#12
Massachusetts
51.8%
—
#13
Texas
51.7%
—
#14
New Jersey
51.6%
—
#15
Maryland
51.5%
—
#16
Arizona
51.4%
—
#17
Mississippi
51.3%
—
#18
Michigan
50.4%
—
#19
New Mexico · your comparison
50.2%
—
#20
Washington
49.9%
—
#21
Delaware
49.6%
—
#22
North Carolina
48.9%
—
#23
West Virginia
48.9%
—
#24
Tennessee
48.8%
—
#25
Alabama
48.8%
—
#26
Virginia
48.5%
—
#27
Maine
48.4%
—
#28
Vermont
48.4%
—
#29
New Hampshire
48.2%
—
#30
Pennsylvania
48.2%
—
#31
Minnesota
48.1%
—
#32
Indiana
48.1%
—
#33
Rhode Island
48%
—
#34
Illinois
47.9%
—
#35
Utah
47.2%
—
#36
Idaho
46.9%
—
#37
Oklahoma
46.3%
—
#38
Ohio
45.9%
—
#39
Missouri
45.6%
—
#40
Kentucky
45.4%
—
#41
Nebraska
45.1%
—
#42
Arkansas
44.8%
—
#43
Montana
44.8%
—
#44
Alaska
44.6%
—
#45
Iowa
43.9%
—
#46
Wisconsin
43.7%
—
#47
Kansas
43.5%
—
#48
Wyoming
43.1%
—
#49
South Dakota
39.8%
—
#50
North Dakota
38.9%
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Both series start at 100 in 2016. The gap describes price pressure; it is not a mortgage payment or a price-to-income ratio.
New Mexico · 2025+82.3%
New Mexico rank#30among all 50 states
U.S. benchmarkNot availableSame measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Home-price growth since 2016
FactVote averages the four quarterly, not-seasonally-adjusted FHFA all-transactions HPI observations for each year. It compares that series with BEA annual per-capita personal income distributed by FRED, then rebases both to 100 in 2016.
This is a pressure indicator, not a home-price-to-income ratio and not a measure of monthly mortgage affordability. Both series are nominal; neither is adjusted for inflation. Per-capita personal income includes earnings, property income, and transfers and is not median household income.
Hover to inspect. Click or tap to compare that period with every state. Focus the graph and use arrow keys, Home or End to select a period. Press Escape to return to the latest period.
New Mexico
2025 · New Mexico: +82.3% · Rank #30 of 50, highest first · Selected for state comparisonView history and select a period
New Mexico Home-price growth since 2016 history
Period
New Mexico
Compare
2016
+0%
2017
+3.3%
2018
+6.8%
2019
+12.4%
2020
+19.2%
2021
+33.2%
2022
+52%
2023
+61.6%
2024
+71.7%
2025
+82.3%
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. New Mexico stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. New Mexico has a dark outline.
Lower value · +38.2%Higher value · +141.7%Striped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
New Mexico · +82.3%2025 · Rank #30 of 50, highest firstSelected state
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at the index base (0% growth); #1 means the highest value.
Compare New Mexico with every state · 50 ranked
Home-price growth since 2016 · 2025 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
Idaho
+141.7%
—
#2
Florida
+114.5%
—
#3
Maine
+113.7%
—
#4
Utah
+113.6%
—
#5
Tennessee
+112.4%
—
#6
Arizona
+112.3%
—
#7
New Hampshire
+110.1%
—
#8
Rhode Island
+108%
—
#9
Georgia
+107.6%
—
#10
North Carolina
+107.1%
—
#11
Montana
+106.7%
—
#12
Nevada
+106.1%
—
#13
South Carolina
+105.5%
—
#14
Washington
+100.2%
—
#15
Indiana
+94.5%
—
#16
Wisconsin
+94%
—
#17
Michigan
+93.7%
—
#18
Ohio
+93.3%
—
#19
Vermont
+92.6%
—
#20
New Jersey
+88.9%
—
#21
Missouri
+86.9%
—
#22
New York
+85.9%
—
#23
Nebraska
+84.6%
—
#24
Massachusetts
+84.3%
—
#24
South Dakota
+84.3%
—
#26
Texas
+83.3%
—
#27
Kentucky
+83.2%
—
#28
Colorado
+83.1%
—
#29
Kansas
+82.5%
—
#30
New Mexico · your comparison
+82.3%
—
#31
Alabama
+81.3%
—
#32
Arkansas
+80.8%
—
#33
Connecticut
+79.8%
—
#34
Pennsylvania
+78.4%
—
#35
Virginia
+76.5%
—
#36
Delaware
+75.4%
—
#37
Oregon
+74.7%
—
#38
California
+72.7%
—
#39
Oklahoma
+71.9%
—
#40
Minnesota
+70%
—
#41
Wyoming
+69.3%
—
#42
Illinois
+65.3%
—
#43
Iowa
+64.2%
—
#44
Mississippi
+63.9%
—
#45
Hawaii
+63%
—
#46
Maryland
+59.4%
—
#47
West Virginia
+58.6%
—
#48
Alaska
+51.9%
—
#49
North Dakota
+45.9%
—
#50
Louisiana
+38.2%
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
State building activity, vacant units, mortgage performance, and borrowing rates are different measures.
New Mexico · 20257,747
New Mexico rank#37among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark1,431,616Same measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Total housing units authorized
New privately owned housing units authorized by building permits; final annual, not seasonally adjusted.
A permit is authorization, not a start or completed home. Absolute counts reflect the size of a state. Units in permit-issuing places; excludes public housing.
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. New Mexico stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. New Mexico has a dark outline.
Lower value · 848Higher value · 210,217Striped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
New Mexico · 7,7472025 · Rank #37 of 50, highest firstSelected state
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare New Mexico with every state · 50 ranked
Total housing units authorized · 2025 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
Texas
210,217
—
#2
Florida
178,297
—
#3
California
103,856
—
#4
North Carolina
86,167
—
#5
Georgia
61,196
—
#6
Arizona
51,532
—
#7
South Carolina
45,862
—
#8
Tennessee
43,374
—
#9
New York
38,667
—
#10
Washington
34,913
—
#11
Colorado
33,754
—
#12
Ohio
33,640
—
#13
Virginia
33,094
—
#14
Indiana
29,076
—
#15
New Jersey
27,661
—
#16
Utah
26,775
—
#17
Pennsylvania
25,709
—
#18
Wisconsin
25,569
—
#19
Michigan
23,075
—
#20
Minnesota
20,947
—
#21
Alabama
19,061
—
#22
Illinois
18,551
—
#23
Nevada
18,540
—
#24
Idaho
17,944
—
#25
Missouri
17,474
—
#26
Oklahoma
15,513
—
#27
Arkansas
15,492
—
#28
Kentucky
14,940
—
#29
Oregon
14,839
—
#30
Louisiana
14,203
—
#31
Iowa
13,664
—
#32
Maryland
13,358
—
#33
Massachusetts
12,477
—
#34
Nebraska
10,596
—
#35
Kansas
10,299
—
#36
Mississippi
8,405
—
#37
New Mexico · your comparison
7,747
—
#38
Connecticut
7,273
—
#39
Maine
6,979
—
#40
Delaware
6,468
—
#41
South Dakota
5,305
—
#42
Montana
5,258
—
#43
New Hampshire
5,030
—
#44
West Virginia
3,962
—
#45
Hawaii
3,708
—
#46
North Dakota
2,440
—
#47
Vermont
2,294
—
#48
Wyoming
2,238
—
#49
Rhode Island
1,738
—
#50
Alaska
848
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Explore current officeholders and explicitly reviewed historical executive officials, labeled at the time of their actions. Timeline dates, action type, status and search also filter this list. Read any record’s summary, latest recorded status and official evidence below, or open it beside the timeline.
4 of 4 reviewed New Mexico actions · newest first
Jan 26, 2026 · SB 138 · REPEAL RENT CONTROL PROHIBITION · Action postponed indefinitelyNew Mexico Legislature · SB 138
REPEAL RENT CONTROL PROHIBITION
Jan 26, 2026 · Action postponed indefinitely
Linda M. López · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
As introduced, SB 138 proposed repealing Section 47-8A-1 NMSA 1978, the prohibition on political subdivisions and home-rule municipalities enacting rent control for privately owned real property. It was action-postponed indefinitely. Even the proposed repeal would not itself set local rent limits or demonstrate a change in median gross rent.
The official history records Action Postponed Indefinitely (API). The displayed date is the latest dated legislative action, not an independently dated postponement. This relationship reviews the introduced version; later substitutes and amendments are outside its selected excerpt. This bill did not enact the reviewed proposal.
Why this record is included
Gross rent includes contract rent and estimated tenant-paid utilities and fuel. Rental-fee disclosures, application-screening fees, local rent regulation and the rental components of housing proposals concern costs or access without establishing a change in the statewide median. This connection does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain the earlier observed value.
Retained New Mexico evidence context: Median gross rent. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
AN ACT REPEALING THE PROHIBITION ON POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS AND HOME RULE MUNICIPALITIES FROM ENACTING RENT CONTROL FOR PRIVATELY OWNED REAL PROPERTY. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO: SECTION 1. REPEAL.--Section 47-8A-1 NMSA 1978 (being Laws 1991, Chapter 23, Section 1) is repealed.
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑Oct 24, 2025 · HR 5824 · Tribal Affordable Housing Act · In CongressU.S. Congress · New Mexico delegation · HR 5824
Tribal Affordable Housing Act
Oct 24, 2025 · In Congress
Rep. Melanie A. Stansbury · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
HR 5824 would require HUD to award competitive grants within one year after enactment for qualifying Tribes and Tribally designated housing entities to build or improve residential units on Tribal land, under NAHASDA program requirements. The eligibility rule uses a prior allocation below $500,000 in at least one of five preceding fiscal years. The proposal authorizes $150 million annually beginning in fiscal 2026; it does not itself establish an appropriation, grant award or construction. Its definition includes leased dwellings, which are the component related to rent.
Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services. No enactment of this bill is recorded at the review cutoff.
Why this record is included
Gross rent includes contract rent and estimated tenant-paid utilities and fuel. Rental-fee disclosures, application-screening fees, local rent regulation and the rental components of housing proposals concern costs or access without establishing a change in the statewide median. This connection does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain the earlier observed value.
Retained New Mexico evidence context: Median gross rent. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
2.Tribal affordable housing grant program for (a)In generalThe Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (referred to in this section as the Secretary) shall, not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, award grants on a competitive basis to eligible entities for 1 or both of the following activities on Tribal land: (1)Building a residential dwelling unit. (2)Adding at least 1 necessary feature to a residential dwelling unit. (b)Program requirementsAny grant awarded under this section shall be administered in accordance with program requirements under the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 4101 et seq.). (c)Authorization of appropriationsThere is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary $150,000,000 for fiscal year 2026 and each subsequent fiscal year to carry out this section. (d)DefinitionsIn this section: (1)Eligible entityThe term eligible entity means any of the following: (A)An Indian Tribe that, in at least 1 of the 5 fiscal years immediately before the fiscal year, received a final allocation of less than $500,000 from the Department of Housing and Urban Development under the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 4101 et seq.). (B)A Tribally designated housing entity from an Indian Tribe that, in at least 1 of the 5 fiscal years immediately before the fiscal year, received a final allocation of less than $500,000 from the Department of Housing and Urban Development under the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 4101 et seq.). (2)Indian TribeThe term Indian Tribe has the meaning given such term under section 4 of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 4103). (3)Necessary featureThe term necessary feature means any feature that, as determined by the Secretary, would improve a residential dwelling unit or would be necessary to build a residential dwelling unit. (4)Residential dwelling unitThe term residential dwelling unit means a dwelling unit that is owned or leased, or intended to be owned or leased, in whole or in part, as the home or residence of 1 or more individuals. (5)Tribally designated housing entityThe term Tribally designated housing entity has the meaning given such term under section 4 of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 4103).
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑Aug 12, 2025 · HR 4969 · Keep Mobile Homes Affordable Act · In CongressU.S. Congress · New Mexico delegation · HR 4969
Keep Mobile Homes Affordable Act
Aug 12, 2025 · In Congress
Rep. Gabe Vasquez · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
HR 4969 would direct HUD to investigate pad-site pricing in manufactured-home communities and report publicly and to Congress within 270 days after enactment on potential manipulation and price gouging. It would also require monitoring and investigation when a purchaser has purchased more than 2,500 homes or pad sites in a HUD-defined market area, counting purchases beginning January 1, 2015. A report on each such purchaser investigation would be due within one year after its conclusion. The proposed investigations concern rent increases and utility provision; they do not establish misconduct by a particular owner or reduce rents by themselves.
Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services. No enactment of this bill is recorded at the review cutoff.
Why this record is included
Gross rent includes contract rent and estimated tenant-paid utilities and fuel. Rental-fee disclosures, application-screening fees, local rent regulation and the rental components of housing proposals concern costs or access without establishing a change in the statewide median. This connection does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain the earlier observed value.
Retained New Mexico evidence context: Median gross rent. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
2.HUD investigation and report on prices for pad sites in manufactured home communities (a)InvestigationThe Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (hereafter referred to as the Secretary) shall conduct an investigation to determine if the prices for pad sites in manufactured home communities are— (1)being manipulated by any form of market manipulation; or (2)artificially increased through price gouging practices. (b)Report (1)In generalNot later than 270 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Congress and make available on a public website of the Department of Housing and Urban Development a report on the investigation conducted under subsection (a). (2)ContentsThe report shall include— (A)a long-term strategy for the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Congress to address manipulation of prices for pad sites in manufactured home communities, and in preparing the strategy the Secretary shall utilize data on race, gender, and socioeconomic status; and (B)a description and analysis of how institutional investors in manufactured home communities impact seniors and underserved communities. (c)Exemption from Paperwork Reduction ActChapter 35 of title 44, United States Code, shall not apply to the collection of information under subsection (a). 3.Investigations of excessive manufactured home purchases (a)In generalThe Secretary shall monitor purchases of manufactured homes and pad sites for manufactured homes in each housing market area in the United States, as determined by the Secretary, to determine whether any single purchaser of such homes or pad sites, including any purchaser that is an institutional investor, is purchasing an excessive amount of such homes or pad sites made available for sale in any such market area. If the Secretary determines that, beginning on January 1, 2015, any single purchaser has purchased more than 2,500 manufactured homes or pad sites for manufactured homes made available for sale in any market area, the Secretary shall conduct an investigation to determine if such purchaser has engaged in— (1)price gouging; (2)rental increases that are significantly above the area’s median rent price increase; or (3)failure to provide utilities. (b)ReportNot later than 1 year after the conclusion of an investigation conducted pursuant to subsection (a), the Secretary shall submit to the Congress and make available on a public website of the Department of Housing and Urban Development a report of such investigation.
The reviewed sections 2–5 of SB 267 require rental listings to itemize base rent and fees; owners are not liable for a third-party website’s failure to show costs they supplied. Screening fees are capped at $50, require written agreement and a receipt, and cannot be charged when the owner knows or should know no unit is available for the relevant residency. No other application-processing fee is allowed. Funds must remain on hold or undeposited until earlier applicants are rejected or decline. Refunds are required within 30 calendar days when an earlier applicant accepts or the specified screening/application work is not performed. A completed screening within 90 calendar days of the application prevents another screening fee across properties under the same ownership; copies of reports must be provided. Contractual fee increases require at least 60 days’ notice before the stated rental date or fixed-term end, or one rental period for periods shorter than a month. These are rental access and cost rules, not measured rent reductions.
Signed by Governor on 2025-04-08, Chapter 122 of the 2025 Regular Session. Enactment, effective dates, implementation and present enforceability are distinct.
Why this record is included
Gross rent includes contract rent and estimated tenant-paid utilities and fuel. Rental-fee disclosures, application-screening fees, local rent regulation and the rental components of housing proposals concern costs or access without establishing a change in the statewide median. This connection does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain the earlier observed value.
Retained New Mexico evidence context: Median gross rent. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
SECTION 2. A new section of the Uniform Owner-Resident Relations Act is enacted to read: "OWNER DISCLOSURE TO APPLICANTS.--An owner shall disclose to applicants in plain language all costs of a rental agreement in a published listing of the dwelling unit, including the base rent that will be assessed and a description of all fees or charges that will be assessed during the residency, which shall be itemized and readily identifiable in the listing. An owner shall not be liable for violating the provisions of the Uniform Owner-Resident Relations Act for a third-party website's failure to represent all costs provided by the owner." SECTION 3. A new section of the Uniform Owner-Resident Relations Act is enacted to read: "DWELLING UNIT APPLICANT SCREENING FEE--PROHIBITED FEES.-- A. An owner may charge an applicant a screening fee that shall not exceed fifty dollars ($50.00) to cover the cost of obtaining information about the applicant, including the cost of a consumer credit report, a reference check or a screening service; provided that the owner: (1) provides the applicant with written or digital notice of the screening fee and the applicant agrees in writing to pay the screening fee; (2) shall not charge the applicant a screening fee when the owner knows or should know that a dwelling unit is not available for rent at that time or will not be available at the beginning of the residency; (3) provides the applicant with a written or digital receipt for the screening fee paid by the applicant; (4) shall place a hold on a credit card or wait to deposit cash or checks for an applicant's screening fee until all prior applicants have either been screened and rejected or offered the dwelling unit and declined to enter into a rental agreement; and (5) shall not charge any other fees to process an application. B. An owner shall return the screening fee within thirty calendar days to an applicant if: (1) a prior applicant is offered the dwelling unit and agrees to enter into a rental agreement; or (2) the owner does not: (a) obtain a consumer credit report; (b) perform a reference check; (c) use a screening service to obtain information about the applicant; or (d) process the application. C. A screening fee that is returned as provided in Subsection B of this section shall be: (1) returned by certified mail; (2) destroyed upon the applicant's request if paid by check; or (3) made available for the applicant to retrieve." SECTION 4. A new section of the Uniform Owner-Resident Relations Act is enacted to read: "BACKGROUND CHECKS.-- A. An owner may require a background check of an applicant before entering a rental agreement. An owner shall not charge more than one screening fee to the same applicant if the screening was completed within ninety calendar days of the application date for any properties under the same ownership. B. An owner shall provide the applicant with a copy of any reports used to screen the applicant." SECTION 5. A new section of the Uniform Owner-Resident Relations Act is enacted to read: "NOTICE OF FEE CHANGES REQUIRED.--An owner may increase a fee that is provided pursuant to the terms of a rental agreement by providing written notice at least sixty days prior to the periodic rental date specified in the rental agreement or at least sixty days prior to the end of the term of a fixed term residency. In the case of a periodic residency of less than one month, written notice shall be provided at least one rental period in advance of the first fee payment to be increased."
Records come from published fact relationships or reviewed topic records with official supporting evidence and verified New Mexico officeholder attribution. Historical executive officials require evidence tied to the action date and are excluded from incumbent proposals. Inclusion follows an explicit topic review, a related state fact, or the action’s title and supporting evidence. Explicit topic reviews take priority; repeated actions use the most recent explicit review for this topic. Duplicate actions attached to several facts appear once. This topic match is not a new finding that an action caused a result, and the reviewed collection is selective. Collection reviewed Sep 16, 2026.
What candidates are saying
Explore statements about housing, rent, homeownership and borrowing costs from FactVote’s New Mexico candidate profiles. Compare candidates within each recorded race, with each person’s matching statements kept together. These are candidate and campaign statements, not verified outcomes.
10 statements from 7 candidates
2026 New Mexico Governor and Lieutenant Governor — General Election
3 candidates with matching statements · 6 statements
Address the doctor shortage by joining interstate medical compacts, expanding residency programs to rural areas, and bolstering student loan repayment and housing incentives.
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Education, child care, and workforce training
Candidate campaign source
Address the doctor shortage by joining interstate medical compacts, expanding residency programs to rural areas, and bolstering student loan repayment and housing incentives.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026
“I understand what it’s like to not be able to make ends meet despite working multiple jobs – it shouldn’t be this way. We need to make groceries, housing, and health care more affordable.” New Mexicans are struggling to make ends meet – they are doing everything right and still can’t get by. Deb kn…
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Health care
Candidate campaign source
“I understand what it’s like to not be able to make ends meet despite working multiple jobs – it shouldn’t be this way. We need to make groceries, housing, and health care more affordable.” New Mexicans are struggling to make ends meet – they are doing everything right and still can’t get by. Deb knows this firsthand – she relied on benefits like SNAP, WIC, and Medicaid and moved forward after starting her own business selling salsa. New Mexicans need higher wages and lower bills, cheaper rent, and a stronger economy. We have the potential to lead in tech, energy, film, and our outdoor economy. Deb will create jobs and deliver on making New Mexico more affordable.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026
At the same time, we must be honest about the growing list of responsibilities placed on police officers. Too often, they are asked to respond to mental health crises, addiction, and homelessness without the right tools or support. That is not fair to officers or the people they are trying to help. …
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Public safety and justice
Candidate campaign source
At the same time, we must be honest about the growing list of responsibilities placed on police officers. Too often, they are asked to respond to mental health crises, addiction, and homelessness without the right tools or support. That is not fair to officers or the people they are trying to help. I support strengthening behavioral health services so trained civilian teams and medical professionals can assist on these calls, allowing police to focus on preventing crime, responding to emergencies, and enforcing the law.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026
Privacy: We will not sell, share, or rent your personal information to any third party or use your e-mail address for unsolicited mail. Any emails sent by our organization will only be in connection with State Land Office business.
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Bid Packet for Paseo Gateway Tract 17 in Rio Rancho
Candidate campaign source
Privacy: We will not sell, share, or rent your personal information to any third party or use your e-mail address for unsolicited mail. Any emails sent by our organization will only be in connection with State Land Office business.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 17, 2026
Amanda López Askin is a proud public servant with deep roots in New Mexico, she was raised in Las Cruces by a hard working single mom who still needed assistance and public housing to provide a stable life for her children. With the support of her community and hard work and determination, Amanda be…
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Elections, ethics, and government accountability
Candidate campaign source
Amanda López Askin is a proud public servant with deep roots in New Mexico, she was raised in Las Cruces by a hard working single mom who still needed assistance and public housing to provide a stable life for her children. With the support of her community and hard work and determination, Amanda became a therapist and dedicated herself to helping kids in foster care. When the opportunity came to serve her community in Dona Aña County as County Clerk, she leapt at the chance to continue to serve her community that has given her so much. As County Clerk, Amanda leads with fairness and compassion while always ensuring the integrity of our elections. When our 2020 elections were under attack, Amanda persevered combatting misinformation and pushing back on election deniers. Amanda is running for Secretary of State to bring her lived and professional experience to serve all New Mexicans by making sure our elections remain safe, secure, and fair, providing transparency in campaign finance, and supporting New Mexico’s businesses.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 16, 2026
ALBUQUERQUE – Today, Congresswoman Melanie Stansbury (NM-01) held a press conference with local organizations that she helped secure federal funding for through Community Project Funding. These projects work to expand the affordable housing supply and support seniors, families, and young people expe…
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Housing affordability
Government-published candidate material
ALBUQUERQUE – Today, Congresswoman Melanie Stansbury (NM-01) held a press conference with local organizations that she helped secure federal funding for through Community Project Funding. These projects work to expand the affordable housing supply and support seniors, families, and young people experiencing homelessness and housing insecurity across New Mexico.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 17, 2026
This section matches specific housing, rent, homeownership and borrowing costs terms in retained, attributed source text from published New Mexico candidate profiles. A profile heading or biography alone does not qualify. The Florida geography is fixed; saved state preferences cannot change these results. A mention can concern a community or group rather than Florida’s statewide measure.
Matching is automatic and does not establish a candidate’s stance, the accuracy of a claim, or an effect on the measured result. Results are grouped by recorded race, then by candidate name. Within each candidate, the matching issue mentions appear first. Only candidates with matching retained statements are shown; this is not a complete race roster. Repeated identical text for the same candidate is shown once. Coverage follows the existing state profiles and is not a complete record of all candidates or everything they have said. Review dates are not statement dates.
New Mexico incumbents
What incumbents are proposing
Explore reviewed bills sponsored by current New Mexico legislators and New Mexico’s congressional delegation, plus retained proposals from New Mexico’s governor and agencies. Each record keeps its latest recorded status and official evidence.
4 matching sponsorships or proposals · 4 New Mexico incumbents. These filters apply only to this section.
The reviewed sections 2–5 of SB 267 require rental listings to itemize base rent and fees; owners are not liable for a third-party website’s failure to show costs they supplied. Screening fees are capped at $50, require written agreement and a receipt, and cannot be charged when the owner knows or should know no unit is available for the relevant residency. No other application-processing fee is allowed. Funds must remain on hold or undeposited until earlier applicants are rejected or decline. Refunds are required within 30 calendar days when an earlier applicant accepts or the specified screening/application work is not performed. A completed screening within 90 calendar days of the application prevents another screening fee across properties under the same ownership; copies of reports must be provided. Contractual fee increases require at least 60 days’ notice before the stated rental date or fixed-term end, or one rental period for periods shorter than a month. These are rental access and cost rules, not measured rent reductions.
Signed by Governor on 2025-04-08, Chapter 122 of the 2025 Regular Session. Enactment, effective dates, implementation and present enforceability are distinct.
Why this record is included
Gross rent includes contract rent and estimated tenant-paid utilities and fuel. Rental-fee disclosures, application-screening fees, local rent regulation and the rental components of housing proposals concern costs or access without establishing a change in the statewide median. This connection does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain the earlier observed value.
Retained New Mexico evidence context: Median gross rent. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
SECTION 2. A new section of the Uniform Owner-Resident Relations Act is enacted to read: "OWNER DISCLOSURE TO APPLICANTS.--An owner shall disclose to applicants in plain language all costs of a rental agreement in a published listing of the dwelling unit, including the base rent that will be assessed and a description of all fees or charges that will be assessed during the residency, which shall be itemized and readily identifiable in the listing. An owner shall not be liable for violating the provisions of the Uniform Owner-Resident Relations Act for a third-party website's failure to represent all costs provided by the owner." SECTION 3. A new section of the Uniform Owner-Resident Relations Act is enacted to read: "DWELLING UNIT APPLICANT SCREENING FEE--PROHIBITED FEES.-- A. An owner may charge an applicant a screening fee that shall not exceed fifty dollars ($50.00) to cover the cost of obtaining information about the applicant, including the cost of a consumer credit report, a reference check or a screening service; provided that the owner: (1) provides the applicant with written or digital notice of the screening fee and the applicant agrees in writing to pay the screening fee; (2) shall not charge the applicant a screening fee when the owner knows or should know that a dwelling unit is not available for rent at that time or will not be available at the beginning of the residency; (3) provides the applicant with a written or digital receipt for the screening fee paid by the applicant; (4) shall place a hold on a credit card or wait to deposit cash or checks for an applicant's screening fee until all prior applicants have either been screened and rejected or offered the dwelling unit and declined to enter into a rental agreement; and (5) shall not charge any other fees to process an application. B. An owner shall return the screening fee within thirty calendar days to an applicant if: (1) a prior applicant is offered the dwelling unit and agrees to enter into a rental agreement; or (2) the owner does not: (a) obtain a consumer credit report; (b) perform a reference check; (c) use a screening service to obtain information about the applicant; or (d) process the application. C. A screening fee that is returned as provided in Subsection B of this section shall be: (1) returned by certified mail; (2) destroyed upon the applicant's request if paid by check; or (3) made available for the applicant to retrieve." SECTION 4. A new section of the Uniform Owner-Resident Relations Act is enacted to read: "BACKGROUND CHECKS.-- A. An owner may require a background check of an applicant before entering a rental agreement. An owner shall not charge more than one screening fee to the same applicant if the screening was completed within ninety calendar days of the application date for any properties under the same ownership. B. An owner shall provide the applicant with a copy of any reports used to screen the applicant." SECTION 5. A new section of the Uniform Owner-Resident Relations Act is enacted to read: "NOTICE OF FEE CHANGES REQUIRED.--An owner may increase a fee that is provided pursuant to the terms of a rental agreement by providing written notice at least sixty days prior to the periodic rental date specified in the rental agreement or at least sixty days prior to the end of the term of a fixed term residency. In the case of a periodic residency of less than one month, written notice shall be provided at least one rental period in advance of the first fee payment to be increased."
1 proposalView proposals from Linda M. LópezNew Mexico Legislature · SB 138
REPEAL RENT CONTROL PROHIBITION
Jan 26, 2026 · Action postponed indefinitely
Linda M. López · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
As introduced, SB 138 proposed repealing Section 47-8A-1 NMSA 1978, the prohibition on political subdivisions and home-rule municipalities enacting rent control for privately owned real property. It was action-postponed indefinitely. Even the proposed repeal would not itself set local rent limits or demonstrate a change in median gross rent.
The official history records Action Postponed Indefinitely (API). The displayed date is the latest dated legislative action, not an independently dated postponement. This relationship reviews the introduced version; later substitutes and amendments are outside its selected excerpt. This bill did not enact the reviewed proposal.
Why this record is included
Gross rent includes contract rent and estimated tenant-paid utilities and fuel. Rental-fee disclosures, application-screening fees, local rent regulation and the rental components of housing proposals concern costs or access without establishing a change in the statewide median. This connection does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain the earlier observed value.
Retained New Mexico evidence context: Median gross rent. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
AN ACT REPEALING THE PROHIBITION ON POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS AND HOME RULE MUNICIPALITIES FROM ENACTING RENT CONTROL FOR PRIVATELY OWNED REAL PROPERTY. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO: SECTION 1. REPEAL.--Section 47-8A-1 NMSA 1978 (being Laws 1991, Chapter 23, Section 1) is repealed.
U.S. House of Representatives, New Mexico District 2 · D–NM
1 proposalView proposals from Rep. Gabe VasquezU.S. Congress · New Mexico delegation · HR 4969
Keep Mobile Homes Affordable Act
Aug 12, 2025 · In Congress
Rep. Gabe Vasquez · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
HR 4969 would direct HUD to investigate pad-site pricing in manufactured-home communities and report publicly and to Congress within 270 days after enactment on potential manipulation and price gouging. It would also require monitoring and investigation when a purchaser has purchased more than 2,500 homes or pad sites in a HUD-defined market area, counting purchases beginning January 1, 2015. A report on each such purchaser investigation would be due within one year after its conclusion. The proposed investigations concern rent increases and utility provision; they do not establish misconduct by a particular owner or reduce rents by themselves.
Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services. No enactment of this bill is recorded at the review cutoff.
Why this record is included
Gross rent includes contract rent and estimated tenant-paid utilities and fuel. Rental-fee disclosures, application-screening fees, local rent regulation and the rental components of housing proposals concern costs or access without establishing a change in the statewide median. This connection does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain the earlier observed value.
Retained New Mexico evidence context: Median gross rent. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
2.HUD investigation and report on prices for pad sites in manufactured home communities (a)InvestigationThe Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (hereafter referred to as the Secretary) shall conduct an investigation to determine if the prices for pad sites in manufactured home communities are— (1)being manipulated by any form of market manipulation; or (2)artificially increased through price gouging practices. (b)Report (1)In generalNot later than 270 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Congress and make available on a public website of the Department of Housing and Urban Development a report on the investigation conducted under subsection (a). (2)ContentsThe report shall include— (A)a long-term strategy for the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Congress to address manipulation of prices for pad sites in manufactured home communities, and in preparing the strategy the Secretary shall utilize data on race, gender, and socioeconomic status; and (B)a description and analysis of how institutional investors in manufactured home communities impact seniors and underserved communities. (c)Exemption from Paperwork Reduction ActChapter 35 of title 44, United States Code, shall not apply to the collection of information under subsection (a). 3.Investigations of excessive manufactured home purchases (a)In generalThe Secretary shall monitor purchases of manufactured homes and pad sites for manufactured homes in each housing market area in the United States, as determined by the Secretary, to determine whether any single purchaser of such homes or pad sites, including any purchaser that is an institutional investor, is purchasing an excessive amount of such homes or pad sites made available for sale in any such market area. If the Secretary determines that, beginning on January 1, 2015, any single purchaser has purchased more than 2,500 manufactured homes or pad sites for manufactured homes made available for sale in any market area, the Secretary shall conduct an investigation to determine if such purchaser has engaged in— (1)price gouging; (2)rental increases that are significantly above the area’s median rent price increase; or (3)failure to provide utilities. (b)ReportNot later than 1 year after the conclusion of an investigation conducted pursuant to subsection (a), the Secretary shall submit to the Congress and make available on a public website of the Department of Housing and Urban Development a report of such investigation.
U.S. House of Representatives, New Mexico District 1 · D–NM
1 proposalView proposals from Rep. Melanie A. StansburyU.S. Congress · New Mexico delegation · HR 5824
Tribal Affordable Housing Act
Oct 24, 2025 · In Congress
Rep. Melanie A. Stansbury · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
HR 5824 would require HUD to award competitive grants within one year after enactment for qualifying Tribes and Tribally designated housing entities to build or improve residential units on Tribal land, under NAHASDA program requirements. The eligibility rule uses a prior allocation below $500,000 in at least one of five preceding fiscal years. The proposal authorizes $150 million annually beginning in fiscal 2026; it does not itself establish an appropriation, grant award or construction. Its definition includes leased dwellings, which are the component related to rent.
Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services. No enactment of this bill is recorded at the review cutoff.
Why this record is included
Gross rent includes contract rent and estimated tenant-paid utilities and fuel. Rental-fee disclosures, application-screening fees, local rent regulation and the rental components of housing proposals concern costs or access without establishing a change in the statewide median. This connection does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain the earlier observed value.
Retained New Mexico evidence context: Median gross rent. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
2.Tribal affordable housing grant program for (a)In generalThe Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (referred to in this section as the Secretary) shall, not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, award grants on a competitive basis to eligible entities for 1 or both of the following activities on Tribal land: (1)Building a residential dwelling unit. (2)Adding at least 1 necessary feature to a residential dwelling unit. (b)Program requirementsAny grant awarded under this section shall be administered in accordance with program requirements under the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 4101 et seq.). (c)Authorization of appropriationsThere is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary $150,000,000 for fiscal year 2026 and each subsequent fiscal year to carry out this section. (d)DefinitionsIn this section: (1)Eligible entityThe term eligible entity means any of the following: (A)An Indian Tribe that, in at least 1 of the 5 fiscal years immediately before the fiscal year, received a final allocation of less than $500,000 from the Department of Housing and Urban Development under the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 4101 et seq.). (B)A Tribally designated housing entity from an Indian Tribe that, in at least 1 of the 5 fiscal years immediately before the fiscal year, received a final allocation of less than $500,000 from the Department of Housing and Urban Development under the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 4101 et seq.). (2)Indian TribeThe term Indian Tribe has the meaning given such term under section 4 of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 4103). (3)Necessary featureThe term necessary feature means any feature that, as determined by the Secretary, would improve a residential dwelling unit or would be necessary to build a residential dwelling unit. (4)Residential dwelling unitThe term residential dwelling unit means a dwelling unit that is owned or leased, or intended to be owned or leased, in whole or in part, as the home or residence of 1 or more individuals. (5)Tribally designated housing entityThe term Tribally designated housing entity has the meaning given such term under section 4 of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 4103).
Only current New Mexico officeholders retained in the reviewed collection qualify. Bills require a recorded primary sponsorship; cosponsors and signing officials are excluded from sponsorship counts. An official introducer recorded as acting by request is labeled “Introduced by request”; that procedural role does not establish personal policy endorsement. Governor and agency records qualify when recorded as proposed. A separately verified governor transmittal can also establish an original proposal whose latest status reflects its later outcome. Signing an enacted law alone does not establish a proposal. A record appearing under several facts is counted once per officeholder. A bill with multiple primary sponsors appears under each recorded sponsor.
Enacted bills, adopted resolutions and unsuccessful measures remain visible as proposal history. Passing one chamber is not enactment. These counts do not measure effectiveness or prove that an action changed a New Mexico statistic. Collection reviewed Sep 16, 2026.
Sources & methods
Every section retains its primary sources, units, reporting periods and comparison limits. Maps, graphs and tables use the same observation and cohort. All 50 states are listed; D.C. and territories are excluded. Missing and suppressed values remain unavailable and never become zero.
#1 is the highest measured value. Equal source values share a rank and leave gaps (1, 2, 2, 4). Ranks use source precision and are descriptive, not a score of the state. Survey uncertainty and reporting coverage can limit comparisons. Published U.S. benchmarks are used where available; a state average is not substituted.
New Mexico snapshots and fiscal sources keep their own dates and accounting scope. National events and federal distribution explainers describe national context. Actions and statements are filtered to New Mexico, retain their reviewed evidence, and do not establish that a policy caused a measured change.
Retained state source collections assembled October 5, 2026. Original review and source dates remain visible. Refreshing this page does not refresh an official data release.