America's Emptiest Cities

<p>I guess I have having trouble communicating.</p>

<p>I know the banks are borrowing at zero or near zero…</p>

<p>But homeowners are not getting the benefit of this…</p>

<p>Instead…we have savers getting crushed…</p>

<p>Low interest rate environment does not increase the economy if people can’t borrow.</p>

<p>People are so freaked out because people were taking out loans that they couldn’t afford and paying too much for houses…</p>

<p>Now home prices have decreased…people can afford the homes…but they can’t get the loans.</p>

<p>I understand the economic bubbles…
I hate them…
I hated the stock market bubble…I hated the housing bubble…</p>

<p>But the economic choices do not have to be bubbles or depression…there is an in between…</p>

<p>musicprnt…I agree with your last paragraph in Post 60…</p>

<p>I honestly can’t see why Tucson, Arizona is on the list. My area of the city is thriving! We just had to build ANOTHER high school in our district because of how many people we have!</p>

<p>“Edit: I want to decrease supply too…I have already seen the lowering of
interest rates work to keep people in their homes. I didn’t make this crap up. I’m not that creative.”</p>

<p>Do you have a link for that? </p>

<p>“Emilybee…lowering the interest rate does not change the principle of the loan…it raises the value of the asset the loan is based on…”</p>

<p>Ummm…no it doesn’t. </p>

<p>“Instead…we have savers getting crushed…”</p>

<p>Yes, savers get crushed because Wall Street wants people to have to invest in the market (gives them lots of $$$ to gamble with) and why we now have 401K’s instead of guaranteed corp. pensions. The banks lobbied for it and it’s why certain politicians would love to see SS eliminated.</p>

<p>The bottom of this whole financial debacle won’t be until interest rates rise and all those professional so-called investors RUN from the stock market,leaving the retail investor,who was chasing yield,in financial ruin AGAIN…</p>

<p>It appears that PMI is in the process of shutting down and that they can only pay fifty cents on the dollar in mortgage insurance claims. I imagine that this isn’t good news for the banks and homeowners that need mortgage insurance to buy homes (for those few out there looking to buy).</p>

<p>Emilybee…personal relationships told me that lowering rates will keep homes off the market.</p>

<p>Lower interest rates don’t increase the values of housing?</p>

<p>My whole career is ruined. :)</p>

<p>I guess it is true…at the tails of a distribution of economic outcomes…interest rates changes aren’t as effective.</p>

<p>But when people are stuck with loans of 6% or more…I think we have some room.</p>

<p>When mortgages are 4% for the 30 year and, the downpayment rules are lessened, and homeowners can refinance, point out how wrong I am. ;)</p>

<p>[Commentary:</a> Automatically refinancing government-guaranteed mortgages can be a win for all - The Washington Post](<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/commentary-automatically-refinancing-government-guaranteed-mortgages-can-be-a-win-for-all/2011/09/28/gIQAOYOlFL_story.html]Commentary:”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/commentary-automatically-refinancing-government-guaranteed-mortgages-can-be-a-win-for-all/2011/09/28/gIQAOYOlFL_story.html)</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.therealestatemedia.com/most-homeowners-unable-to-refinance-1150.html[/url]”>http://www.therealestatemedia.com/most-homeowners-unable-to-refinance-1150.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Dstark-
I think I understand where you are coming from but I think we may be talking about different things:</p>

<p>“Lower interest rates don’t increase the values of housing?”</p>

<p>They would in a health economy, with lower interest rates people can afford either to buy as house or buy a more expensive one then they normally would, it stimulates demand in buying houses and that causes prices to go up…but that also assumes a lot of things, it assumes:</p>

<p>-People’s incomes are such that they can afford to buy a house
-There isn’t an excess of housing stock. </p>

<p>The problem is both of those things are not true right now. For one thing, even for people working, they have lost ground, people have faced pay cuts, they have faced losing a salary from a spouse, and have also seen the cost of other things like food and energy go up. And especially among young people, who usually are big purchaser of houses, the job situation is bleak…</p>

<p>“I guess it is true…at the tails of a distribution of economic outcomes…interest rates changes aren’t as effective.”</p>

<p>Interest rate changes are effective, but only if banks are willing to lend and there is demand for the loans. Right now, banks don’t want to lend because they are on shaky ground, and many people either don’t have the credit to borrow, or they are afraid to borrow because they are afraid for their job. When economic times are tough, people are not likely to leverage themselves with new debt when they are afraid of the future. </p>

<p>“But when people are stuck with loans of 6% or more…I think we have some room.” </p>

<p>There is, though as I know too well, the banks don’t want to refinance either. In my case, house prices in my area haven’t gone down that much, they are pretty stable, and I have enough equity to refinance based on house sale rates…but the banks I have talked to are using broad based rates of decline in house prices to figure out future exposure so they basically are denying me refinancing because they think the price on my house is going to go down X% a year. </p>

<p>"When mortgages are 4% for the 30 year and, the downpayment rules are lessened, and homeowners can refinance, point out how wrong I am. "</p>

<p>Not wrong, but I question what that is going to do. Yes, the homeowner will have a smaller house payment (and for example, could continue to pay at the old rate and pay the mortgage off sooner), but it won’t change the value of their house or others…and the stimulus that would give is muted, because even though they are saving X hundreds a month, they aren’t likely to use that to spend.</p>

<p>I think the excess of housing stock will decrease…</p>

<p>And I said there would be three outcomes…prices would decline less than they would otherwise…home prices would stabilize…or home prices would rise…I think I said a little rise…</p>

<p>No bubble or anything.</p>

<p>I know people that have lost their houses…and those homes are going to eventually hit the market. I also know people who were able to negotiate with banks…and had their mortgage rates cut…and they are staying in their homes. And guess what? Those homes are not going to
hit the market. There will be fewer homes for sale because interest rates were lowered. A friend of a friend was going to walk…but he said…how could I? My payments are lower than if I had to pay rent. And his house
is a couple hundred thousand under water. </p>

<p>If lowering rates were done on a massive scale…I am pretty confident
housing would look better…and recover sooner.</p>

<p>Instead…it looks like we are going to have another program in this country where the Fed buys mortgages. This supposedly lowers rates…and…supposedly financial institutions will sell existing mortgages and then take that money and loan money on houses at those lower
rates. Then this is supposed to lower inventory of housing …plus demand is supposed to increase because the cost of buying is lower.</p>

<p>This relies on the banks to actually loan money. I think there is an extra step in this program. The banks. F… The banks. Sorry trader talk. ;)</p>

<p>If the Fed wants to lower supply and increase demand…let’s just cut the rates directly to the homebuyers and homeowners and eliminate the middleman.</p>

<p>"There is, though as I know too well, the banks don’t want to refinance either. In my case, house prices in my area haven’t gone down that
much, they are pretty stable, and I have enough equity to refinance based on house sale rates…but the banks I have talked to are using broad based rates of decline in house prices to figure out future exposure so they basically are denying me refinancing because they think the price on my house is going to go down X% a year. "</p>

<p>Our society has done so much to help the banks survive. Banks are able to borrow at zero…even JPMorgan borrowed something like 80 billion at zero rates. I kind of forget the exact amount. :slight_smile: the banks have to step up too…the banks have to contribute to helping society…and by doing this it will actually help the banks.</p>

<p>What the banks are doing to you is bs.</p>

<p>Anyway…musicprnt…I agree with most of what you wrote and I enjoy reading the sections where you disagree too.</p>

<p>The economy does stink and people are worried about their jobs, retirement, costs, etc…</p>

<p>It is bad out there.</p>

<p>[Home</a> Lending Revamp Planned - WSJ.com](<a href=“Home Lending Revamp Planned - WSJ”>Home Lending Revamp Planned - WSJ)</p>

<p>"Federal regulators on Monday plan to unveil a major overhaul of an under-used mortgage-refinance program designed to help millions of Americans whose home values have tumbled.</p>

<p>The plan is the latest White House effort to deal with one of the most critical impediments to economic recovery—a stagnant housing market caused in part by a surfeit of homeowners who are unable to refinance.</p>

<p>The overhaul will, among other things, let borrowers refinance regardless of how far their homes have fallen in value, eliminating previous limits. That could open up refinancing to legions of borrowers in Nevada, Arizona, Florida, California and elsewhere …"</p>

<p>That program doesn’t do anything to increase demand for home buying. The only thing I see it doing is generating fees for the banks. </p>

<p>People can refinance all they want but they are still paying off a home worth half what it was when they bought it. </p>

<p>I just don’t see how saving a couple hundred $'s a month (if that) can make a difference between staying in a home and foreclosure/walking away. If someone is close to foreclosure they have more financial problems than a few $$$ saved by refinancing can solve.</p>

<p>Does anyone think refinancing an existing loan from say 7% to 4% is going to make much of a difference?On a 100k loan the difference in monlthly payments is less then $200…</p>

<p>Crossposted with above,lol</p>

<p>You guys can think what you want…</p>

<p>but if the costs…of home ownership decline to the costs of renting…people are less likely to walk…</p>

<p>And lower interest rates…do this for some…</p>

<p>and many people who have mortgages of 100,000 probably have incomes around 40,000 a year…so a decrease of 2,000 a year in expenses…is like a 5% raise…</p>

<p>dstark,
Just want to let you know how much I personally appreciate all your threads and posts. You always think deeply, and listen well to others, and search for truth. When you disagree, you show respect. And you are one of the few posters here that tells others when you like their post (and not just because you agree with it, but because you appreciate the info, the take, whatever.)
You keep things interesting, keep the info flowing, and are a big plus to CC !</p>

<p>SOOO- A much deserved " I like your posts. I like your threads." to YOU, dstark!</p>

<p>p.s Of COURSE I do not always agree with you LOL (how boring and unproductive that would be LOL), but enjoy the rides your posts take us on.</p>

<p>“p.s Of COURSE I do not always agree with you LOL”</p>

<p>lol…you should…:)</p>

<p>thanks performersmom…</p>

<p>I appreciate it. :)</p>

<p>Well, you deserve to hear it!</p>

<p>I don’t get why places like Detroit and Buffalo aren’t on the list. They are both at half or less than half of their peak post-WWII populations, and with a severe downward shift of relative incomes (i.e., they were prosperous with lots of high-paying unionized industrial jobs 50 years ago, and now they have high unemployment and low wages). The vast majority of the 1950s housing stock is still there. </p>

<p>Doesn’t that count as empty? It sure feels that way if you go there.</p>

<p>I’m not sure why Detroit is not on the list. Maybe because percentages are being used instead of the amount of vacancies…</p>

<p>Maybe the info is incorrect…</p>

<p>Detroit-8th sickest real estate market</p>

<ol>
<li>Detroit, Mich. (tie)
Homeowner vacancy rates: 2.4 percent (32nd)
Rental vacancy rates: 17.2 percent (3rd)
Total housing units: 1,886,537
Unemployment: 11.6 percent
The recession hasn’t been kind to Detroit. Part of the Detroit-Warren-Livonia metropolitan area, it has been among the hardest hit cities in the country. Since 2005, the metropolitan area has lost approximately 323,400 jobs. Unemployment in the Motor City almost reached 30 percent in 2009. According to one estimate, the city had 90,000 abandoned or vacant lots or residential homes in 2010. One of the reasons the city is not at the top of this list is that the city had so many vacant properties that a huge portion of them were demolished. Regardless, at 17.2 percent, the rate of rental vacancy is still the third highest rate in the nation.</li>
</ol>