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.
I hate being the bearer of bad news, but RealtyTrac releases statistics every quarter about foreclosures around the country. Needless to say, none of the results really surprise me. If you're looking for a house right now, now would be a good time!
If I only had money to buy..sigh!
Top 10 States with the highest rates of foreclosed homes (source: The Latest Updated Foreclosure Rates - RealtyTrac)
1. Nevada
2. Arizona
3. California
4. Florida
5. Idaho
6. Utah
7. Georgia
8. Michigan
9. Colorado
10. Illinois
Top 10 Metropolitan Areas with the highest rates of foreclosed homes (source: http://www.realtytrac.com/contentman...=9&itemid=7733)
1. Las Vegas-Paradise, NV 5.13% of homes
2. Merced, CA 3.72% of homes
3. Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL 3.67% of homes
4. Stockton, CA 3.53% of homes
5. Modesto, CA 3.39% of homes
6. Riverside-San Bernardino, CA 3.37% of homes
7. Bakersfield, CA 2.88% of homes
8. Vallejo-Fairfield, CA 2.85% of homes
9. Reno-Sparks, NV 2.67% of homes
10. Port St. Lucie, FL 2.63% of homes
I hate to say it, but California really has a near monopoly on the top areas of foreclosure. The reason why it's not #1 is because there are enough homes within the state that aren't foreclosed on to keep its rate of foreclosure down at the moment. However, if the economy worsens, the housing market could even be worse off than it is now. I'm kind of surprised with Michigan and Illinois, since they aren't exactly high growth areas. Can anyone shed insight to why they have high foreclosure rates?
Last edited by Lifeshadower; 01-11-2010 at 06:34 PM..
Hm, at first it looked to me more like Nevada is doing the worst. California is much bigger so it's likely to have more cities based on that, but Nevada is number 1 on the first list and a Nevada city tops the other top ten.
Although looking at the county list I can see what you're saying as almost every California looks to have been hit hard. Even then though Florida and Arizona look similar.
Looking at the maps for both unemployment and foreclosure Imperial County and Merced County in California both look like total disasters. Lyon County, Nevada and Yuma County, Arizona also look pretty bad.
Last edited by Thomas R.; 01-11-2010 at 07:19 PM..
Hm, at first it looked to me more like Nevada is doing the worst. California is much bigger so it's likely to have more cities based on that, but Nevada is number 1 on the first list and a Nevada city tops the other top ten.
Although looking at the county list I can see what you're saying as almost every California looks to have been hit hard. Even then though Florida and Arizona look similar.
You are right. I'm probably blinded because I work with cases of foreclosure in San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Contra Costa County, and drove through whole blocks full of foreclosed homes!
Nevada, by rate, is doing the worst because it doesn't have a huge population to begin with and is dependent on transplants and home construction. In addition, 87% of the population is concentrated around Clark and Washoe County, making these relatively local problems (but still a really huge one).
However, even with California's 38 million people and 163,000 square miles, it still manages to have the 3rd top foreclosure rate, and 7/10 counties (with the combined population of those representing 6.5 million people or the population of Arizona in 2008!)
However, I'm also amazed at Florida and Arizona, since it seems to also be a statewide phenomenon.
Michigan and Illinois on the top 10 list shock me though, since they aren't growing areas. It's almost sad, really.
Quote:
Looking at the maps for both unemployment and foreclosure Imperial County and Merced County in California both look like total disasters. Lyon County, Nevada and Yuma County, Arizona also look pretty bad
If you look at all three maps, most of the San Joaquin Valley (San Joaquin County to Kern County) and Imperial County have all three pathologies: High foreclosures, high unemployment, and low median income. These are all agricultural counties, which are fast being developed by those who want to find cheaper housing, on top of that a restless migrant worker population that typically have swings of high unemployment depending whether or not its harvest season and are mostly illegal immigrants from Mexico.
Lyon (near Reno) and Nye County (near Las Vegas) have high unemployment rates because these are areas that are dependent on construction of new homes, and construction is slow. Yuma County, its a combination of being an agricultural county, but also dependent on snowbirds for a huge chunk of income.
It pains me to see that California and Nevada, with Arizona not far behind (3 states I know very intimately) is starting to join the ranks of the Rust Belt and the economically depressed Great Plains states. It seems that the best state right now, from an economic standpoint, is Texas.
Last edited by Lifeshadower; 01-11-2010 at 07:39 PM..
Reason: Addressing second point
You are right. I'm probably blinded because I work with cases of foreclosure in San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Contra Costa County, and drove through whole blocks full of foreclosed homes!
Nevada, by rate, is doing the worst because it doesn't have a huge population to begin with and is dependent on transplants and home construction. In addition, 87% of the population is concentrated around Clark and Washoe County, making these relatively local problems (but still a really huge one).
However, even with California's 38 million people and 163,000 square miles, it still manages to have the 3rd top foreclosure rate, and 7/10 counties (with the combined population of those representing 6.5 million people or the population of Arizona in 2008!)
However, I'm also amazed at Florida and Arizona, since it seems to also be a statewide phenomenon.
Michigan and Illinois on the top 10 list shock me though, since they aren't growing areas. It's almost sad, really.
If you look at all three maps, most of the San Joaquin Valley (San Joaquin County to Kern County) and Imperial County have all three pathologies: High foreclosures, high unemployment, and low median income. These are all agricultural counties, which are fast being developed by those who want to find cheaper housing, on top of that a restless migrant worker population that typically have swings of high unemployment depending whether or not its harvest season and are mostly illegal immigrants from Mexico.
Lyon (near Reno) and Nye County (near Las Vegas) have high unemployment rates because these are areas that are dependent on construction of new homes, and construction is slow. Yuma County, its a combination of being an agricultural county, but also dependent on snowbirds for a huge chunk of income.
It pains me to see that California and Nevada, with Arizona not far behind (3 states I know very intimately) is starting to join the ranks of the Rust Belt and the economically depressed Great Plains states. It seems that the best state right now, from an economic standpoint, is Texas.
Actually, the Great Plains States have metros that are doing very well right now like Omaha, Lincoln, in the Dakotas(Fargo, Sioux Falls, etc.) and a few others.
Actually, the Great Plains States have metros that are doing very well right now like Omaha, Lincoln, in the Dakotas(Fargo, Sioux Falls, etc.) and a few others.
I misspoke when I said that. However, its not hard to do well when your economic activity doesn't involve huge sums of money. You are talking about an area which has a COMBINED total GSP of less than $1 trillion. Thus, its not hard to grow when you have little capital to begin with. It's like if I had a dollar in the bank, and my account grew by another $1 (100% growth rate). It doesn't mean I'm rich.
However, you're right. I was just trying to parallel agricultural areas with each other. Even in California, the most agricultural counties are weathering the recession a little better, while the exurban counties (San Bernardino, Riverside, San Joaquin, etc.) are doing the absolute worst.
Yeah the Plains tend to be stable, not rapid booms or busts. That's obviously not universally true or anything, but it's somewhat true.
To look for who's doing well Bismarck, North Dakota looks to be about doing the best. The foreclosure rate in its county is 1 in 11,017, the unemployment rate is 2.8, and the median household income is $52,158. Well if I'm reading the map right. Iowa City also looks to be doing well.
I misspoke when I said that. However, its not hard to do well when your economic activity doesn't involve huge sums of money. You are talking about an area which has a COMBINED total GSP of less than $1 trillion. Thus, its not hard to grow when you have little capital to begin with. It's like if I had a dollar in the bank, and my account grew by another $1 (100% growth rate). It doesn't mean I'm rich.
However, you're right. I was just trying to parallel agricultural areas with each other. Even in California, the most agricultural counties are weathering the recession a little better, while the exurban counties (San Bernardino, Riverside, San Joaquin, etc.) are doing the absolute worst.
Huh? That doesn't even make sense. Omaha and Lincoln have a higher GDP per capita than many metros comparable to their size.
Growth has nothing to do with existing capital. Investment comes from all over the world. The reason CA and many other areas are doing so poorly is because of the speculation and over inflated real estate prices. They are doing so poorly because of reckless nature of lending, borrowing and credit/debt spending rather than from monetary assets.
Credit cards and loans are NOT monetary assets.
Further, the state of California relied so heavily on industries which relied on the average consumer from around the US having extra expendable income.
Huh? That doesn't even make sense. Omaha and Lincoln have a higher GDP per capita than many metros comparable to their size.
Growth has nothing to do with existing capital. Investment comes from all over the world. The reason CA and many other areas are doing so poorly is because of the speculation and over inflated real estate prices. They are doing so poorly because of reckless nature of lending, borrowing and credit/debt spending rather than from monetary assets.
Credit cards and loans are NOT monetary assets.
Further, the state of California relied so heavily on industries which relied on the average consumer from around the US having extra expendable income.
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!
Huh? That doesn't even make sense. Omaha and Lincoln have a higher GDP per capita than many metros comparable to their size.
But that doesnt really reflect personal income does it?
And I do agree that the Plains are probably in better shape overall.
Quote:
Growth has nothing to do with existing capital. Investment comes from all over the world. The reason CA and many other areas are doing so poorly is because of the speculation and over inflated real estate prices.
The first sentence of this quote is unrelated to the second sentence.
Quote:
They are doing so poorly because of reckless nature of lending, borrowing and credit/debt spending rather than from monetary assets.
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.
Quote:
Credit cards and loans are NOT monetary assets.
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.
Quote:
Further, the state of California relied so heavily on industries which relied on the average consumer from around the US having extra expendable income.
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.
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.
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.
I learn something new everyday!
