Gothamist: NYC Foreclosures Up 67%

eyekantspel

Mon, 04 Aug 2008 19:13:25 -0500

Queens (half the foreclosures there were) Jen must be channeling her inner Yoda. As others have posted, these percentages can be misleading without actual numbers behind them. If there were 2 foreclosures in 2007 and 4 in 2008, that's a 100% increase. NYC has held up pretty well so far, but I expect we're going to see a LOT more pain in the year to come.

arsguide

Mon, 04 Aug 2008 17:35:36 -0500

it'll be bad for the city in proportion that the good the RE market did for city wasn't sustainable and now some it has to be given back. Unscientifically it 'seems' to me areas of Brooklyn appreciated 150% in just a few years. Now the dance is over and some people are going to have to pay the fiddler.

NannyState

Mon, 04 Aug 2008 16:12:34 -0500

The article mentions "14 homes seized in Manhattan". That's a small number but it doesn't reflect the true number of foreclosed and delinquent mortgages in Manhattan. Nevertheless, the island is fairly impervious to all the bleeding out there. Maybe.

McFister

Mon, 04 Aug 2008 15:51:29 -0500

There is no mention of 'seven' as the number of foreclosures in the article.

Potosi

Mon, 04 Aug 2008 15:31:51 -0500

Anyone who bothers to closely read the report will see that while there are hundreds of foreclosures in other burroughs, there were only 7 foreclosures in Manhattan. Seven. We all owe a hearty thanks to co-op boards for not accepting anyone with whose financials show they can't pay for their home.

Gentrifier

Mon, 04 Aug 2008 15:02:35 -0500

That said: Who wouldn't have fallen for "Payments as low as $400 a month' or the "Less than you rent" offers? Shame on the lenders for being predatory and taking advantage of people on fixed/low income who wanted the benefits but didn't truly have the money. Who wouldn't have fallen for that? Oh, I don't know -- someone who actually used his head and read the fine print? Yes, the banks were predatory and scummy. But the victims really should have been savvier and not walked into the trap that was set for them.

babyhitler

Mon, 04 Aug 2008 14:31:40 -0500

#6 - yeah it's not the time to buy a LOT but small turnover is better than no turnover in the mean time.

Art Stewel

Mon, 04 Aug 2008 13:26:41 -0500

The 'American Dream' of highly mortgaged homeownership is a sales pitch. There should be no government bailout of the banks, or the suckers who bought into that, regardless of any predatory marketing/lending. Lesson learned.

Anna_Merkin

Mon, 04 Aug 2008 12:57:53 -0500

RE market overall is still quite overvalued from an inflation-adjusted perspective.

Spiritof76

Mon, 04 Aug 2008 12:51:59 -0500

Queens is the epicenter of the national crisis? I thought the real trouble was in California.

NannyState

Mon, 04 Aug 2008 12:21:31 -0500

It's now a game of musical chairs where one set of subprime borrowers gets forced out and replaced by a new set. The scary part is what's happening in Miami where a billionaire vulture capitalist has swooped down and bought thousands of depressed condos. He won't sell them to just anybody and by buying up the quality deadstock, is leaving only the marginal properties to ordinary homeowners. Corporate ownership of housing is looming on the horizon.

McFister

Mon, 04 Aug 2008 11:17:28 -0500

Now is not the time to buy. The market isn't anywhere near the bottom yet.

williambruce

Mon, 04 Aug 2008 11:12:00 -0500

Well: Home ownership is the 'American Dream' and I don't blame someone for wanting to do that (I own, and always wanted to, but saved for years and bought a 'starter home.'). That said: Who wouldn't have fallen for "Payments as low as $400 a month' or the "Less than you rent" offers? Shame on the lenders for being predatory and taking advantage of people on fixed/low income who wanted the benefits but didn't truly have the money. And yes: regardless, this is bad for our economy as a City. Of course, if you're a renter looking to buy, now might be the time as prices will dip on these foreclosed homes and, who knows, maybe these people will be able to afford them after all.

babyhitler

Mon, 04 Aug 2008 11:03:35 -0500

#1 - RE investors wouldn't buy when the market is high. Now that the market is soft and the sellers are vulnerable it's time to strike. Which is what I'm doing now.

abzme

Mon, 04 Aug 2008 10:52:01 -0500

yeah. Those assholes have made it so that you have to be rich to look poor.

S.D.

Mon, 04 Aug 2008 10:48:08 -0500

Actually, I read that most people losing there homes are normal people just wanting a home of their own. Even if they are "wanna be RE investors", don't you think that's a bad sign for the Local Economy in NYC? I'm against a buy out of Bad Debt (Me, I made sure I could afford my mortgage BEFORE getting one) but this bodes ill of the economy. In the end, I think NYC's people will suffer for other people bad decisions.

arsguide

Mon, 04 Aug 2008 10:24:52 -0500

I assume most of these people who are losing their homes were wanna be RE investors who were happy to use risky borrowing to buy over priced houses at the hopes of getting rich off RE and are in turn directly responsible for housing prices going as high as they have in the city. They need to lose their homes en masse to put some logic back into the market.