Will the recovery be televised? (shorter version)
All this talk about reforming banks, creating green jobs and reviving the credit markets gives me a warm feeling about us rolling up our collective American sleeves and doing...something.
But how will we know it's working? Lately, we've all been checking the Dow Jones Industrial Average, to see whether the people who got us into this mess in the first place approve of the proposed solutions. And that's just weird. But what to do?
I have a hunch that a crucial measurement should be in the arena of housing, where all this began. And it shouldn't be in housing sales, because unless the number of foreclosures drops, sales will just represent a downward spiral of forced bargain-basement selling. (A cellar of sellers, so to speak.) In fact, maybe the measurement should be of number of homeowners saved from foreclosure or numbers of upside-down loans stabilized--numbers which are shockingly low even after months of discussing the issue.
I was struck by the lukewarm response to Bertha Lewis' post on ACORN's activities to stop foreclosures. As CEO of ACORN, Ms Lewis is surely the Warren Buffet of poor people.
I'm a little uncomfortable with direct action tactics myself, and I could take issue with ACORN's representation of the foreclosed as hapless victims of the man--which I think has unintentionally contributed to the misunderstanding that the foreclosed are either inept or malicious. But who's going to quibble about whether the person who issued the hurricane warning ought to have worn a red suit or a blue one: ACORN saw this problem coming a mile away and has consistently been on the homeowners' side with a view toward fixing it.
I'm glad to see ACORN and others seemingly scrap the "workout options" presented by the banks, which are proving ineffective, in favor of a more radical approach. It would be interesting to hear more from Ms. Lewis about whether that's what ACORN is doing, and to know whether it's possible to build a consensus around that more radical approach. Testing here at TPM would be useful.
In any case, a critical measurement for how we are doing will be how many homeowners (and perhaps even how many rental property owners!) are made whole and able to provide stable housing for ordinary people once again.
I'm pretty sure it's a number that none of the big players have dared to look at yet. It's up to all of us to demand that they do so, because our future depends on it.
















I didn't see Lewis' post. What is ACORN doing?
The problem with foreclosures is that only some fraction of them are owner-occupied. Some huge fraction of houses bought recently (2004-2006 I think) were 2nd or 3rd etc. properties. Now if those were rented out, I think tenants should be allowed to stay rather than leaving them empty until resold. But I don't see a good reason to oppose foreclosing them.
If it's a first-time homebuyer who got caught, maybe.
If it's someone who bought early and then borrowed heavily against the paper value increases and now cannot make payments, that's iffy. Maybe some special cases.
February 13, 2009 3:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I will try to provide a link. I was really surprised there wasn't more discussion of her entry.
I know we disagree about foreclosure intervention. I'm in favor of casting a pretty wide net because I think the social/real estate consequences of the vacancies are so damaging that it will be impossible to make the recovery work until the number of houses on the market drops.
Hoping that if I keep talking, folks like you will change your minds. ;^)
February 13, 2009 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
erica - if you don't/can't use the Reply feature (it's a javascript thingie), would you mind quoting or indicating what comment you're replying to? In some threads it's hard to figure out...
Vacancies and foreclosures are only correlates, in my view. As you know, I've advocated angel investing and lease-options to keep people in houses, plus allowing tenants to stay in rental units with 30 day notice if the property is sold to a buyer who will make it a primary residence and lease guarantees if a rental owner takes over the property.
I don't see what else is needed.
February 13, 2009 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought I used the reply feature--but my tpm interface has been acting up lately.
One reason I'm ok with letting rental property owners participate in the stimulus/bailout/whatever it's going to be, is that in some neighborhoods there simply isn't enough owner-occupied property to turn things around. And in terms of neighborhood decline, an empty property is an empty property. The thieves who are going to steal the copper and then use the place as a flophouse don't care whether the previous owner lived there or not.
Another is that allowing rental property owners to participate if they meet certain guidelines could really help clean up neighborhoods. (Guidelines could include tenant screenings and evictions if requested by block clubs, property maintenance, etc.) It would be a great way to ease the traditional friction between homeowners and absentee landlords and pull neighborhoods together.
February 13, 2009 11:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
How did I not cover rentals already?
"plus allowing tenants to stay in rental units"
So the buildings would not be empty, the tenants would not be summarily evicted if a foreclosure occurred...
I'm a renter who might yet own someday, so for me personally and selfishly, dropping house prices are attractive. Another 10% and I might be ready. But beside my personal values, I think government money should be spent prudently.
February 14, 2009 2:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
You did cover it, but I think the problem with allowing tenants to stay in rental units is that somebody has to be the landlord, and banks aren't really set up for it.
I'm not dying to bail out landlords--but I think it might be useful in some neighborhoods.
February 14, 2009 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds like a niche, property management for absentee landlords who don't want to deal with tenants! And it would boost local economy with jobs and cash flow. The bank gets cash flow too.
February 14, 2009 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
hmm, maybe landlords could split debt and future equity (if any) with a neighborhood organization or block club that does the management (angel investor using public money to make up the diff between) ...but wait, there's still a hit that the bank needs to take unless the gov is willing to step in...
Regarding your buying plans, I'm going to get out my crystal ball and say that the lowest income neighborhoods that have been hit hard already and are littered with foreclosures have hit bottom. You could pick up several of them for the price of one house elsewhere. Random overbuilt mc mansions that are the most expensive house on a much lower price point block/area are also good, as are homes built on spec & never lived in.
If you're looking for a "nice" home in a stable neighborhood, be patient. Those prices haven't dropped much, but (again just imho) there is a good possibility that will change later this spring as it dawns on people that this will be a long haul and there is nothing to prevent home prices from dropping through the floor. If we get a handle on the crisis in the meantime, those values will remain stable, but if not, it's anyone's guess how far prices will fall....
February 14, 2009 9:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
"there's still a hit that the bank needs to take unless the gov is willing to step in..."
That mischaracterizes the situation. The bank has already taken a hit. Not only has it lost cash flow and inherited a dead albatross property which is vacant, it could be facing large foreclosure costs and selling costs. And of course it or its investors will lose a bundle if they sell outright. Having tenants at a cost of say 10-20% of rent paid to the service company might look very nice to the bank and investors as a short term deal (3-18 months I'd guess). And if it's lease-option that's even easier.
A government program which eased the legal requirements might help the bank and the former homeowner, and that might help the investors who are angry at the bank for being late on its payments to them!
February 14, 2009 10:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just meant that there is still a difference between the mortgage and the value of the house. I don't know, ultimately, how to erase it...sleepy...
February 15, 2009 12:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well part of that is the paper loss the bank or investor takes when they foreclose (assuming the mortgage value is over the property value). That and the loss of cash flow.
If the homeowner doesn't default, and keeps paying the now outrageously high mortgage payments, then nobody realizes a loss. Are you thinking we should subsidize mortgage payments for a couple of years, in exchange for getting equity in the house which we could recover if/when the house is sold in the future?
That's one form of my "angel investor" idea. But I think some losses should be taken on both sides, the homeowner and the bank/investors.
February 15, 2009 2:14 AM | Reply | Permalink