Metro Washington Foreclosure Rates: A Tale of Two Trends

This map published by the Urban Institute’s “Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Foreclosure Monitor” displays foreclosure rates across the Washington metro area. The data appear to reflect two broad trends.

First, the foreclosure rate increases with the distance from the metropolitan core. Arlington has the lowest foreclosure rate in the region, followed by Alexandria and Fairfax County. Likewise, the affluent, largely white, zip codes in northwestern Washington, D.C., also have a very low foreclosure rate. Outlying jurisdictions such as Spotsylvania and Warren counties in Virginia, Charles County in Maryland and Jefferson County in West Virginia have among the highest foreclosure rates. This reflects the fact that property values have held up better in the urban core than in the metropolitan periphery.

Which brings us to the second observation. The major exception to the preceding rule is that zip codes dominated by African-Americans —  eastern Washington, D.C., and “suburban” Prince George’s County, Md. — have a much higher foreclosure rate.

Why would African-Americans suffer from a higher foreclosure rate? I offer a hypothesis, which I will quickly retract should conflicting data be brought to my attention. The hypothesis is this: When housing prices were zooming higher in the 2000s, banks shoveled out money for real estate loans most recklessly for sub-prime loans. Less affluent Americans, who were disproportionately African-American, bought into real estate near the top of the market and, thanks to the collapse in lending standards, were less able to keep up their mortgage payments when the economy, and housing prices, collapsed.

— James A. Bacon


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

6 responses to “Metro Washington Foreclosure Rates: A Tale of Two Trends”

  1. It strikes me that distance from D.C. is probably not a material factor in these data. The key factors are likely income levels over time for purchasers and the bubble in housing prices. Too many people purchased homes that they could not afford. Had those persons who purchased homes in outlying areas instead bought closer in (probably smaller homes), they would likely still be in forfeiture.

  2. I don’t have the data in hand either but I suspect Jim is on to something.

    the tract type developments in Spotsylvania have a large percentage of minorities…. judging by watching the cars that enter and exit them… admittedly not a very empirical measure…

    Spotsylvania is a “drive-til-you-qualify” type exurb… as people will drive past Stafford – also an exurb but close to the core…

    many who move here are “with family” which means they are looking for multi-bedroom first time homeowner housing…

    the data is there… but these days.. “studies” that tend to implicate minorities in behaviors – associated with perceived minority stereotypes are verboten. even thinking it is discouraged! 🙂

  3. Tmt and Darryl are correct. The same people would have run out of money and lost their homes when they list their jobs anyway.

    Whether homes in exurban Areas lost more value is a chicken and egg problem. If more people lost their lost their jobs, more homes on the market would push the prices down. Absent jobs, the homes are no more affordable at a low price.

  4. Housing and health care may be the least of our problems.

    In a recent Wells Fargo survey, respondents between the ages of 50-59 said that they had, on average, about $29,000 saved up. With pensions all but gone, and Social Security targeted for cuts in the future, it’s hard to count on anyone but yourself. But $29,000 isn’t going to cut it for most people.

    From Motley fool

  5. Housing and health care may be the least of our problems.

    In a recent Wells Fargo survey, respondents between the ages of 50-59 said that they had, on average, about $29,000 saved up. With pensions all but gone, and Social Security targeted for cuts in the future, it’s hard to count on anyone but yourself. But $29,000 isn’t going to cut it for most people.

    From Motley fool

Leave a Reply