U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-15-2010, 11:29 AM
 
3,284 posts, read 2,868,980 times
Reputation: 1832

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair View Post
But that doesnt really reflect personal income does it?

And I do agree that the Plains are probably in better shape overall.

The first sentence of this quote is unrelated to the second sentence.

Its because of greedy banks pedaling predatory loans to people who didnt qualify in the first place. As well as pushover homeowners who saw all that green waved in front of them and couldnt resist. They were giving homes to people on welfare, people on SSI, people they made up phony tax documents for etc.

Yes and GDP rankings really don't speak to what people take home either. It speaks to the total value of goods and services in a specific geographic area during the year.

Actually the regions of California that 'export' products that are dependent on the average consumer have extra income, those parts of California are not on the OPs list of places with the highest foreclosure rates.

No Los Angeles, No San Francisco, No San Jose, No San Diego, No Orange County, No East Bay.

These are the 6 biggest economies of California(with a combined gross product of $1.3 Trillion and over home to 20 Million people) and none of them made the OPs list of worst foreclosure markets.

Obviously California has its issues, but the housing mess appears to be getting better-I think.

Ironically,
the most expensive metros in California are seeing sales booms over last year while the cheaper metros are seeing stagnation. This is because prices are down in pricey coastal counties and people who might not have been able to afford before are no able to buy.
To be honest, I can't tell if half of what you said was to reinforce my quotes or not. I was simply offering a few examples here and there explaining why California is doing so poorly. I'm not speaking of specific counties, just the state as a whole. Just like the previous quote I addressed was speaking of an entire multi-state region.

Further, it really sounds as though you are making the unqualified home owners out as the victims. I could see that for those who have been laid off and lost their home, but it takes real dumbasses that make 100K combined annual income to think that they can purchase a 400k home. It's everyone's fault from the buyer, to the lender, to builders buying materials on lines of credit, to the lack of government oversight and regulation.

California did not get into this mess by chance; it was because an overall mentality those properties would ever increase in value which is absurd.

Just look at the entire real estate industry and how they operated. Just like a house of cards. It was built on credit from the bottom up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-15-2010, 11:42 AM
 
3,284 posts, read 2,868,980 times
Reputation: 1832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lifeshadower View Post
I'm sorry for that..I've been scrambling to try to find an explanation for the phenomenon but couldn't come up with anything. As Thomas R. has said, the Plains states have been stable with very little upturns and downturns. That's what I was trying to say.

Thanks for the correction I learn something new everyday!
Yeah, I think I get what you are saying. To be honest, the housing bubble was nothing more than a trigger effect for the entire situation. It's actually very complicated. Not only were the banks tossing out cash to anyone with an open hand, they were doing the same for businesses. A crazy amount of businesses were operating in the red for so long because they were operating on lines of credit which they could not climb out of. It's the treadmill effect, eventually you have to stop and the likelihood of stopping after you get over the cash flow hump is nearly impossible.

We did do something smart, yet, rather unethical. We bundled billions of dollars worth a crappy investment and sold them overseas. So in essence we mitigated the risk by dispersing it to our friends overseas.

Now you know why so many countries are fed up with the US. What's even better, most of the investment bust originated in China and they are our biggest critics. But I digress because that's an entirely different conversation all together.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2010, 12:01 PM
 
Location: Northridge, Los Angeles, CA
2,685 posts, read 6,361,844 times
Reputation: 2356
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jays1983 View Post
To be honest, I can't tell if half of what you said was to reinforce my quotes or not. I was simply offering a few examples here and there explaining why California is doing so poorly. I'm not speaking of specific counties, just the state as a whole. Just like the previous quote I addressed was speaking of an entire multi-state region.

Further, it really sounds as though you are making the unqualified home owners out as the victims. I could see that for those who have been laid off and lost their home, but it takes real dumbasses that make 100K combined annual income to think that they can purchase a 400k home. It's everyone's fault from the buyer, to the lender, to builders buying materials on lines of credit, to the lack of government oversight and regulation.

California did not get into this mess by chance; it was because an overall mentality those properties would ever increase in value which is absurd.

Just look at the entire real estate industry and how they operated. Just like a house of cards. It was built on credit from the bottom up.
I do agree that to some extent that it's the buyers fault for thinking they could afford the huge loan to begin with, but it's also criminal negligence on the part of the lender to give those loans in the first place. That's why many of those lenders are facing lawsuits nowadays, with lawyers making the most out of this crisis. (Again, I work for a firm that deals with many of these cases)

However, this goes in conjunction with the Californian mentality of 'wanting everything' but not wanting to pay for it. All this crisis has taught me is being a renter is better than being a buyer because of all the headache attached to it. I just don't attach that much importance in owning your own house (I sure as hell don't care about having some kind of status from doing so), at least at this point in my life because I don't believe that driving all the way out to Stockton/Tracy or Riverside because you qualify for a home-loan is wise. The California real estate bubble had to give at some point, and it did. Now we are all paying the price for it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair View Post
Actually the regions of California that 'export' products that are dependent on the average consumer have extra income, those parts of California are not on the OPs list of places with the highest foreclosure rates.

No Los Angeles, No San Francisco, No San Jose, No San Diego, No Orange County, No East Bay.

These are the 6 biggest economies of California(with a combined gross product of $1.3 Trillion and over home to 20 Million people) and none of them made the OPs list of worst foreclosure markets.

Obviously California has its issues, but the housing mess appears to be getting better-I think.

Ironically,
the most expensive metros in California are seeing sales booms over last year while the cheaper metros are seeing stagnation. This is because prices are down in pricey coastal counties and people who might not have been able to afford before are no able to buy.
Eastern Contra Costa county got hit hard. Take a drive through Antioch or Pittsburg some time . Many of those neighborhoods look no different than Stockton's. The further east you go, the higher the foreclosure rate becomes (source: Contra Costa County Local Foreclosure Trends and Foreclosure Information | RealtyTrac)

Pittsburg: 1 in every 77 housing units foreclosed
Antioch: 1 in every 65 housing units foreclosed
Oakley: 1 in every 60 housing units foreclosed
Brentwood: 1 in every 41 housing units foreclosed

However, most of the areas along the Bayside or in Alameda County weren't hit. The exurbs got hit the hardest, places where people probably shouldn't be developing to begin with but do because it will sell houses.

Unlike the rest of the states affected by home foreclosures (which brought a HUGE decline in construction, and thus a higher unemployment rate), California's economy is extremely diversified and isn't as dependent on construction as Florida, Nevada, or Arizona. However, this still doesn't mean California is out of the red just yet. I hope for your sake and mine you're right. By 2012-2013, I hope I have enough money to qualify to buy property because by then, it will be dirt cheap!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jays1983 View Post
Yeah, I think I get what you are saying. To be honest, the housing bubble was nothing more than a trigger effect for the entire situation. It's actually very complicated. Not only were the banks tossing out cash to anyone with an open hand, they were doing the same for businesses. A crazy amount of businesses were operating in the red for so long because they were operating on lines of credit which they could not climb out of. It's the treadmill effect, eventually you have to stop and the likelihood of stopping after you get over the cash flow hump is nearly impossible.

We did do something smart, yet, rather unethical. We bundled billions of dollars worth a crappy investment and sold them overseas. So in essence we mitigated the risk by dispersing it to our friends overseas.

Now you know why so many countries are fed up with the US. What's even better, most of the investment bust originated in China and they are our biggest critics. But I digress because that's an entirely different conversation all together.
That's interesting, but is OT for this topic. However, I will say that the US' credit rating overseas has been on a steep decline in the past two years.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...XtcAkUaBqnLtuw
We're now barely holding onto the AAA credit rating, but before, we were downgraded as a country. To be fair though, maybe this will teach us all a valuable lesson in business ethics. Somehow though, the cynic in me says 'I doubt it'
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2010, 12:14 PM
 
Location: Zurich, Switzerland/ Piedmont, CA
32,377 posts, read 55,190,768 times
Reputation: 15462
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lifeshadower View Post


Eastern Contra Costa county got hit hard.
Eastern Contra Costa County is NOT a metropolitan area.

Its is a relatively small part of the San Francisco MSA and its foreclosure problems are not indicative of the entire Bay Area.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2010, 12:23 PM
 
Location: Northridge, Los Angeles, CA
2,685 posts, read 6,361,844 times
Reputation: 2356
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair View Post
Eastern Contra Costa County is NOT a metropolitan area.

Its is a relatively small part of the San Francisco MSA and its foreclosure problems are not indicative of the entire Bay Area.
Neither are Orange County (part of LA MSA) and the East Bay (SF MSA), but I get what you're saying. I just wanted to point out there ARE areas of the East Bay that have municipalities amongst the top 10% of foreclosure rates along the Highway 4 corridor.

LA MSA also has areas badly hit (ala Lancaster, Palmdale, Santa Clarita, Pomona, etc.) (Los Angeles County Local Foreclosure Trends and Foreclosure Information | RealtyTrac) Generally speaking though, SF and LA have enough housing units to balance that out. That's a good thing, but the problems are still there.

I'm sure in almost any MSA, you'll find signs of exurban growth trumped by foreclosure rates. They just seem so stark in California's big metro areas, that's all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2010, 12:35 PM
 
Location: Zurich, Switzerland/ Piedmont, CA
32,377 posts, read 55,190,768 times
Reputation: 15462
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jays1983 View Post
Further, it really sounds as though you are making the unqualified home owners out as the victims.

Oh its home owners faults too, but you obviously were not in California when banks seemed to be doling out 'lottery loans' to anyone who walked into their branch.

People on welfare and retirees, low income earners and basically anyone with a job were approved for half-million dollar homes and they were promised that they could simply refinance when it came near the time for the rate to change.

Lenders are in the business of knowing who and should not be given loans.

Quote:
I could see that for those who have been laid off and lost their home, but it takes real dumbasses that make 100K combined annual income to think that they can purchase a 400k home.
It wasnt the $100,000 income crowd that had the problems.

It was the $50,000 income crowd trying to buy a $600,000 house.

Quote:
It's everyone's fault from the buyer, to the lender, to builders buying materials on lines of credit, to the lack of government oversight and regulation.
Obviously its everyone's fault.

Quote:
California did not get into this mess by chance; it was because an overall mentality those properties would ever increase in value which is absurd.
Well, California is no different from other western states, Florida and the Northeast where home values catapulted dramatically only to sharply decline.

Its just that fewer people in other places took out those stupid loans, loans that were practically handed to people almost like christmas presents.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2010, 12:45 PM
 
3,284 posts, read 2,868,980 times
Reputation: 1832
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair View Post
Oh its home owners faults too, but you obviously were not in California when banks seemed to be doling out 'lottery loans' to anyone who walked into their branch.

People on welfare and retirees, low income earners and basically anyone with a job were approved for half-million dollar homes and they were promised that they could simply refinance when it came near the time for the rate to change.

Lenders are in the business of knowing who and should not be given loans.


It wasnt the $100,000 income crowd that had the problems.

It was the $50,000 income crowd trying to buy a $600,000 house.


Obviously its everyone's fault.


Well, California is no different from other western states, Florida and the Northeast where home values catapulted dramatically only to sharply decline.

Its just that fewer people in other places took out those stupid loans, loans that were practically handed to people almost like christmas presents.
Couldn't agree more. That is also why it makes me sick to my stomach that so many bank executives are still living fat and happy without any repercussions or personal reponsibility whatsoever.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2010, 03:54 PM
 
Location: Northridge, Los Angeles, CA
2,685 posts, read 6,361,844 times
Reputation: 2356
I've decided to update this list to reflect this quarter's showing. Anyways, foreclosures are down in a lot of areas (and the US as a whole), but some areas have been increasing. Hawaii has increased by 75.16% in terms of foreclosures since JULY (yeah, so much can change in a month), earning it a place in the top 10.

U.S. Foreclosure Trends and Foreclosure Market Statistics | RealtyTrac
News Headlines

United States: 1 in 381 homes

Top states by foreclosure rate
(August 2010)
1. Nevada: 1 in 84 homes
2. Florida: 1 in 155 homes
3. Arizona: 1 in 165 homes
4. California: 1 in 194 homes (at least this went down..so a glibber of good news, I guess)
5. Idaho: 1 in 220 homes
6. Utah: 1 in 230 homes
7. Georgia: 1 in 246 homes
8. Michigan: 1 in 255 homes
9. Illinois: 1 in 314 homes
10. Hawaii: 1 in 315 homes

Nevada seems to be in a league by itself...and that's not a good thing. I hope they can recover soon!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2010, 09:10 PM
 
Location: 30-40N 90-100W
13,856 posts, read 22,976,124 times
Reputation: 6687
It seems like Nevada has something of a boom/bust history. At one time that was mining related, I think, and now I guess it's real estate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-19-2010, 11:00 AM
 
Location: Blue Ash, Ohio (Cincinnati)
2,786 posts, read 5,679,842 times
Reputation: 705
Those job losses are killing Michigan and Illinois.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top