The Observation Deck

David Anderson wrote:Lakewood's Housing Unit Profile

According to our Housing Department:

Apartments/Condos/Single and Doubles Above Store Fronts –
984 buildings comprising 12,827 total units

Single Family Homes –
9,318 (389 are rentals)

Doubles –
3,231 (1,739 have an owner in the house)

Triples –
327 (no figure available on owner occupied)


So, adding all apartments/etc. to all singles, doubles and triples without an owner in the house (3,192), it appears that 12.9% of these structures have active 2007 foreclosure cases. This percentage jumps to 18.5 when considering 2006 and 2007 cases.

413/12,827 or did I miss something Thanks in advance

Justine Cooper wrote:Good ideas till I read the last paragraph! How much exactly does the city "spend" on educating home buyers? Not that they should, that should fall on the homebuyer. Teaching a pig to sing isn't anything like educating people Bill!

Over the line again?

The County (not the City) is instituting various programs to educated home buyers and those who are having trouble paying their mortgage. I think its mostly a waste of time and money.

People who would have bought in Cleveland buy in Lakewood, people who use to buy in Lakewood buy in Rocky River or Fairview, etc because of zero down loans with teaser rates.

They all knew what they were doing. Taking a big chance to own a bigger, newer home. It shouldn't come as a surprise that when the payment gets to much to handle they walk away. They have no equity and no assets.

I like the saying about pigs singing because it illustrates the point that sometimes trying to give good advice is a waste of time. "You can bring a horse to water but you can't make him drink" illustrates the same point but doesn't boil the blood enough.

The mortgage "crisis" is an opportunity to remove some obsolete housing, rebuild neglected property and make an overall improvment in the City housing stock. A side benefit would be the moral boost that would come from that renewal.

Some of the City money invested would be lost i.e. pay $45,000 tear it down and give the land to the neighors or pay $60,000 put in $75,000 and sell for $110,00. But I don't look at it as a loss but as an investment.

The $4 million dollar city housing investment fund might generate $20 million in housing investment in a short time.

Of course if 10 cents of that money is used for operation paint brush it will lose my support. The idea is to remake whole houses and whole neighborhoods and not to give everyone in the City $300 to paint the porch.

Haha no not over the line (this time!) Actually you make a lot of good points, sometimes, even though I don't agree with your one sided perception of this mortgage crisis, I do enjoy your posts. I did get the humor in your pig comment but believe education and prevention could do more good than cleaning up messes. With every issue we have a problem with in this country incidentally, from teen births to mortgages to domestic violence and on. Prevention is cheaper than clean up. But that is won't help us with the mortgage crisis now, although it should be a lesson for other things in this country.
On a good note, Hillary took California, whoohoo!

Stephen -

I should have been clearer when I typed, "So, adding all apartments/etc. to all singles, doubles and triples without an owner in the house (3,192), it appears that 12.9% of these structures have active 2007 foreclosure cases. This percentage jumps to 18.9 when considering 2006 and 2007 cases."

I added BUILDINGS not DWELLING UNITS.

984 All apartments/etc.
389 Singles that are rental
1,492
327
3,192

2007 foreclosure filings (413) divided by 3,192 is 12.9%.
2006 and 2007 foreclosure filings (602) divided by 3,192 is 18.9%.

I'll admit it's dubious math in that it assumes that owner occupiers are not going into foreclosure and that "all apartments/etc." are not owner occupied.

I would welcome another interpretation of these numbers.

Sorry, I hit "Post" instead of "Preview."

The 1,492 figure is all non owner occupied doubles.
The 327 figure is all triples (unable to determine whether some are owner occupied.

David Anderson wrote:.

I'll admit it's dubious math in that it assumes that owner occupiers are not going into foreclosure and that "all apartments/etc." are not owner occupied.

I would welcome another interpretation of these numbers.

With all due respect, its not just dubious, it makes the whole theory unusable

Without knowing how many of the foreclosures are owner-occupied singles and which are absentee investments, the percentage is meaningless. We could very well discover that of the 411 foreclosures, only 10 were of non-owner-occupied investment property. Or it could be 110,210, 310, or 410.
That also calls into doubt the comment about the city forcing note holders to improve "substandard properties." Where is the link between "foreclosed" and "substandard" and how do we know the note holders are letting the properties decline?

Yes, there is plenty of evidence that says neighborhoods tend to improve with the rate of home ownership, but its certainly no guarantee of paradise , as weve seen with the current sub-prime crisis. Many many single family homeowners are walking away, more than investors.

Sounds like an awful lot of assumptions being made here.

David, what is the total number of houses and apartment buildings in Lakewood?

Dee -

I appreciate your critique and agree. Feel free to take a shot at the calculations and research.

In putting my thoughts out there (and encouraging others', like yours), I'm simply trying to determine whether our elected leaders are measuring the current and potential impact of the foreclosure issue here in Lakewood and any possible policy actions.

I agree that a more sophisticated analysis is needed but believe this discussion, albeit chock full of assumptions regarding causes and types of buildings involved, begs the question.

Are folks in City Hall, with access or the means to gather the required information, on top of this issue?

Here are facts, not assumptions:
44107 foreclosure cases in 2006 and 2007 - 602
44107 properties currently in auction - 264
44107 properties currently bank owned - 622
44107 properties currently in pre-foreclosure - 417

Stephen - This is what I gained from the City yesterday.

984 - Apartment/condo/above storefront/motel/rooming house buildings (12,827 total living units).
9,318 - Single family homes (389 of which are non owner occupied).
3,231 - Doubles (1,492 of which are non owner occupied).
327 - Triples (not known how many are non owner occupied).
13,860 - Total buildings

This means that possibly 13.74% of 44107 housing buildings are in one of the following categories.

44107 foreclosure cases in 2006 and 2007 - 602
44107 properties currently in auction - 264
44107 properties currently bank owned - 622
44107 properties currently in pre-foreclosure - 417

Two foreclosed properties that I know of had many improvments done to them. The problem came when house payments went from $700.00 a month to $1,200 a month without warning. In the scramble, the two homeowners got further and further behind. I did advise them to shortsell, but frankly they were so overwhelmed at the point they couldn't take it.

That's real life and real people.

Sure people should do this. They should do that. Not everyone has the emotional strength to do it. Sometimes people just are too worn down.

Come on - hit me with your best shots.

sharon kinsella wrote:
Come on - hit me with your best shots.

No shots from me. This is a very hard subject to deal with.
On one hand most people of "my generation" never would have dreamed of walking away from a mortgage commitment and a home.

On the other hand, people of generations past didnt have a wild array of loans or companies consistently advertising $500,000 LOANS FOR JUST $100 A MONTH!! Furthermore, when you got a mortgage "back in the day" the local bank kept the loan. If you got behind you knew the guy sitting behind you at the Little League game knew about it.

No one is totally at fault. No one is totally innocent.
Think about this. Some of the same people whose loans went into foreclosure certainly also owned Countrywide stock when it was booming.
Crazy huh?

David Anderson wrote:Dee -

I appreciate your critique and agree. Feel free to take a shot at the calculations and research.

In putting my thoughts out there (and encouraging others', like yours), I'm simply trying to determine whether our elected leaders are measuring the current and potential impact of the foreclosure issue here in Lakewood and any possible policy actions.

I agree that a more sophisticated analysis is needed but believe this discussion, albeit chock full of assumptions regarding causes and types of buildings involved, begs the question.

Are folks in City Hall, with access or the means to gather the required information, on top of this issue?

Here are facts, not assumptions:
44107 foreclosure cases in 2006 and 2007 - 602
44107 properties currently in auction - 264
44107 properties currently bank owned - 622
44107 properties currently in pre-foreclosure - 417

Hopefully you know I wasnt trying to snipe but the occupier vs. investor question is at the hart of the subject.
Funny because my reaction is the opposite of yours. I think that investors, particularly those in larger buildings, were more sophisticated and less inclined to get into "gadget" financing than individual homeowners. Plus lenders have always been a little more skeptical about financing investment property than owner occupied homes.
But we could both be wrong, and right.

Thanks Dee.

Sometimes I feel like people look at numbers and not the people behind them. Assumptions are made, judgements are formed and no one has even talked to even one of the people affected. Or if they have, they've only talked to one.

You know they say that there are more stories in the naked city.

Dee Martinez wrote:

sharon kinsella wrote:
Come on - hit me with your best shots.

On the other hand, people of generations past didnt have a wild array of loans or companies consistently advertising $500,000 LOANS FOR JUST $100 A MONTH!! Furthermore, when you got a mortgage "back in the day" the local bank kept the loan. If you got behind you knew the guy sitting behind you at the Little League game knew about it.

No one is totally at fault. No one is totally innocent.
Think about this. Some of the same people whose loans went into foreclosure certainly also owned Countrywide stock when it was booming.
Crazy huh?

Dee,
Very well rounded statement, there was a ton of blame on many sides, and some caught in the middle that got blindsighted. My sister whom lives in CA often gives me the "other" version of my perspective on the mortgage crisis, telling me about the people there that overspent and overspent, and how one of the nicest communities out there is number one for foreclosures in the country (can't verify that). What troubles her, as an animal rights activists, more than the abandoned homes, is that some of the people who are leaving the homes, are also leaving their pets!! Too many Americans (I will only speak for our country) think EVERYthing is disposable!!! Everything is indicative of a larger issue.

Sharon,
Thanks! Now I can't get Pat Benatar out of my head while trying to study! "Hit me with your best shot! Come on hit me with your best shot! Fire away.................."