OwnRVA Public Research · August 2026
A county comparison of listings removed from the market and homes subsequently relisted.
What the source reports
| Measure | Richmond city | Henrico County | Chesterfield County |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total delistings | 48 | 61 | 55 |
| Share of listings delisted | 7.0% | 5.9% | 3.6% |
| Total relistings | 8 | 11 | 15 |
| Share of listings relisted | 1.2% | 1.1% | 1.0% |
How to read the result
Richmond city and Henrico showed higher delisted shares than Chesterfield, while relisting counts remained much smaller than delisting counts in all three places. A delisting can reflect many decisions, including timing, condition, pricing, occupancy or a seller choosing not to proceed.
What buyers can do with it
A relisted property deserves a clean chronology: prior asking prices, days exposed, contract history when available, current condition and any changed terms. The event itself does not establish a defect or a bargain.
What sellers can do with it
Before withdrawing and relaunching, evaluate whether the core issue is price, presentation, access, property readiness or timing. A new listing date does not erase the evidence buyers and agents may already have seen.
Method and limits
The dataset describes listing events, not seller intent, property condition or whether a prior contract existed.
Values were extracted from the provider's public county-level file or report, normalized to a common jurisdiction label, and checked for duplicate jurisdiction-period records. No client MLS export or private customer data were used. Provider definitions remain authoritative and may be revised.
Source access: Redfin Data Center. Public source snapshot assembled September 29, 2026. Remote acquisition time is not independently attested; local persistence time and file hash are retained in the preparation ledger.