Foreclosure auction signs, by Niall Kennedy, http://www.flickr.com/photos/niallkennedy/3407343448/in/photostream/
By Ngoc Nguyen, New America Media
Ethel Gist bought her dream house and planned to retire to Antioch,
Calif. Instead, the 70-year-old lost the house during the height of the
foreclosure crisis, and now rents a place with her daughter and two
grandchildren.
After he lost his three-bedroom home in East Los
Angeles, Rene Lopez says his world has “shrunk.” He and his family of
seven are crammed into a two-bedroom apartment. Lopez, who lost his job
as a jeweler, is struggling to find work in a restaurant.
Dianne
Pinkston, a self-employed tax preparer in Los Angeles, inherited the
family house, only to lose it to foreclosure soon after. Pinkston still
has a debt of $150,000 to pay off, but says she finds solace in her
family and friends, and the fact that after the ordeal, she’s “still
standing.”
Gist, Lopez and Pinkston are the faces of foreclosure
in California - ground zero for the housing crisis. Since the start of
the housing crisis, the Golden State has the dubious distinction of
being first in the nation in the number of total foreclosures – more
than half a million completed, based on October 2008 to June 2011
data from RealtyTrac.
The pace of foreclosures ebbed following the
eruption of the “robo-signing” scandal, in which loan servicers approved
foreclosures without looking at the underlying documents. Banks halted
foreclosures over the last several months temporarily to overhaul their
protocols.
But foreclosures are expected to pick up in the months
ahead. An estimated one million foreclosure actions that should have
taken place this year will now happen in 2012, according to Daren
Blomquist, director of marketing and communications with Irvine,
Calif.-based RealtyTrac.
“That’s not because one million people
have avoided foreclosure over the long term, it’s because the process
has slowed,” he said, noting that the time it takes to complete a
foreclosure has doubled in the last four years from 154 to 318 days.
Bottom line: The foreclosure crisis is far from over.
Dimensions of California’s housing crisis
In
California, an estimated 1.2 million homeowners have lost their homes
to foreclosure since 2008. An additional 800,000 homes are expected to
receive foreclosure notices by 2012, according to a report by RE-Fund California Campaign, citing data from RealtyTrac and Moody Analytics.
Despite
the wave of foreclosures, few policies at the state or federal level
are giving homeowners relief. The federal Home Affordable Modification
Program, or HAMP, is the main policy put forth to staunch the foreclosure
crisis. It has largely failed, as banks have modified a mere fraction of
the loans of troubled homeowners. To date, the number of permanent
modifications through the program hovers around 730,000. In California,
while 1.2 million homeowners have faced foreclosure in the last three
years, only 122,577 borrowers received permanent modifications under the
program.
California’s foreclosure crisis has decimated urban
centers and swaths of the Central Valley. One in 51 housing units
received a foreclosure filing during the first six months of the year,
according to RealtyTrac. The state also registered the highest number of
foreclosure filings in the nation for the same time period.
Minorities in the state are being hit the hardest.
According to research by Dr. Carolina Reid of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco,
minorities have been disproportionately impacted by the foreclosure
crisis. Looking at a sample of loans originated in 2005, she found that
approximately 12 percent of Hispanic borrowers, 8 percent of African
American borrowers, 7 percent of Asian borrowers and 5 percent of white
borrowers were in default.
The higher percentage of loans in
foreclosure for minority borrowers is in part explained by the fact that
they were more likely to receive subprime loans, even after controlling
for differences in borrower and neighborhood risk characteristics,
according to Reid. For example, in California, Reid found that
Hispanics were 7.9 percent more likely than whites to get a subprime
adjustable rate mortgage over a prime, fixed rate loan; the respective
figures for blacks and Asians were 6.7 percent and 2.1 percent.
In California, half of foreclosures (48.2 percent) were of Latino borrowers, according to a 2010 study by the Center for Responsible Lending.
State policies offer little relief
Since
the start of the foreclosure crisis, the state legislature passed
several bills to help troubled homeowners. Much more help is needed,
housing advocates say.
“[There is] no good reason for the
legislature not to jump on the bandwagon, at this of all times, to
support legislation that would help to limit some of the abuses that
homeowners are experiencing. It’s shameful behavior [by politicians],”
said Maeve Elise Brown, director of Oakland-based Housing and Economic
Rights Advocates, a statewide nonprofit legal service and advocacy
organization that served 1,600 homeowners last year.
Housing
advocates point to SB 94 - a bill passed in 2009 that prohibits anyone
assisting in a mortgage loan modification from charging up-front fees -
as a critically needed measure. The large gap between borrowers seeking
loan modifications and those actually receiving them has spurred
mortgage rescue scams that find and exploit vulnerable homeowners. Brown
says by the time homeowners contact her organization, many have already
handed over money to mortgage rescue scammers. “Some gigantic
percentage of clients paid a thousand bucks to $9,000 bucks” to a
scammer, she said.
Another 2008 bill, SB 1137, required servicers
to make contact with borrowers before initiating foreclosure action.
The law was key because early on, servicers weren’t “answering the
phones” when borrowers called, said Paul Leonard, California director of
the Center for Responsible Lending. Now, he says, the needs of
borrowers have shifted. He pointed to the “dual track” problem,
referring to a practice where banks initiate foreclosure proceedings
while they are negotiating a loan modification.
Senate Bill 729
would have addressed that issue, requiring banks to give homeowners an
answer on loan modification applications before initiating foreclosure
proceedings. This May, state legislative committees failed to clear SB
729 and two other foreclosure-related bills. Assembly Bill 1321 would
have cut paperwork delays by requiring counties to record foreclosures
within 30 days, and Assembly Bill 935 would have required banks to pay a
$20,000 fee on every foreclosure to recoup economic losses by local and
state governments.
The legislature did move to protect another
group caught in the foreclosure crisis: renters. This session, the
legislature enacted laws to protect tenants against utility shutoffs (SB
120) and protects tenants’ credit if they are evicted because of
foreclosure (SB 1149).
At least 38 percent of the foreclosed
units in California were occupied by renters in 2010, which means that
about 200,000 residents were displaced, according to a January 2011
report by the San Francisco-based Tenants Together - a statewide renters'
rights organization.
The state legislature isn’t the only
government body taking on mortgage fraud. California Attorney General
Harris last month launched a statewide mortgage fraud strike force to
investigate illegal financial practices at the community and corporate
level. But her office lost $70 million as part of statewide cutbacks, a
shortfall certain to affect the strike force and its capacity.
News
of the loss of funding for the project coincided with news of an $8.5
billion settlement between Bank of America and a group of investors who
bought mortgage-backed securities.
The deal is a “model of a
settlement agreement for other banks and other kinds of investors,” said
the Center for Responsible Lending’s Leonard. California could mount a
similar investigation and lawsuit, he added, but doing so requires
intensive resources that the attorney general’s office may now lack.
Social impacts of foreclosure unknown
Statistics
on lost homes and lost dollars are relatively easy to track. The
emotional toll on those who lost their homes is not as well documented,
says Brown, of Housing and Economic Rights Advocates.
“Some people are
not going to play anymore. There’s a mistrust of the credit system, and
perhaps rightfully so," Brown says. "I’m interested to see the lingering effect that
has.”
Scholars need to also examine the impact of the “historical
stripping of wealth from communities of color” as a result of the
housing crisis, Brown said.
“The impact is gigantic, for communities of
color generally get paid less money than somebody who is Caucasian, it
takes longer to build up that,” she said.
The impact of
foreclosures on children is also under-examined, she said. An estimated
311,900 California children were impacted by the foreclosure crisis,
according to a 2008 report
by the bipartisan advocacy group, First Focus. The figure does not
include children evicted from rental units. Children who are uprooted
excessively, studies suggest, don’t perform as well in school and are
more likely to develop behavioral issues.
As California’s
foreclosure epidemic continues to unfold, Brown said, state and local
governments need to ramp up efforts to address community-level impacts
of foreclosures.
She said the thousands of foreclosed and
abandoned homes in Ohio have become a breeding ground for
methamphetamine labs and that communities in California are starting to
see a similar rise in blight and crime. The state legislature has
already moved on that front, passing SB 1137 in 2008, which allows
cities to fine banks up to $1,000 per day for leaving foreclosed
properties vacant and blighted.
That money might come in handy.
According to the RE-Fund California Campaign (a collaborative including
the California Reinvestment Coalition, SEIU and community
organizations), the price tag of the foreclosures on California
homeowners, state and local governments is a whopping $650 billion. The
study found that for every foreclosed property, the loss to the
surrounding community is nearly $340,000; the cost in property taxes is
more than $2,000; and the cost to local governments is about $20,000.
Ngoc currently reports for New America Media. Before that she worked as an environment reporter for the Sacramento Bee. She was also editor of NHA Magazine, a national bilingual Vietnamese American publication in California. This article originally appeared on New America Media. La Opinion’s Roger Lindo and the Final Call’s Charlene Muhammad contributed reporting. New America Media and Investigative Reporting Workshop.