Number of Oak Park homes being sold at auction is up dramatically

Foreclosure rate holds steady

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Print

By Anna Lothson

Staff Reporter

Foreclosure filings in Oak Park are holding steady compared with last year's numbers, but the number of auctions, i.e. homes sold in foreclosure, have more than doubled in a year's time, according to village data.

Tammie Grossman, housing program manager for the village, said that at the end of July 2011, the number of foreclosed homes was 206. This year, the number dropped by one.

"In terms of new filings, we're at the exact place we were last year," she said, noting that it's hard to predict how the rest of the year will go. Grossman said they haven't tracked trends to know if a particular time of year spurs more foreclosures.

While the number of foreclosures remains steady, foreclosure sales from that same time in 2011 tallied 61. This year's numbers exploded to 149. Grossman said it's hard to say what sparked the increased sales, but the lag between how long a foreclosed home sits on the market and when it's sold could contribute to the spike.

Grossman said the ability of the village to get involved during the foreclosure process is limited because a number of steps are involved before a bank takes full ownership. The homeowner may mount a defense to try to save the home, and even when the bank takes over, the auction process takes time to establish.

Under Illinois state law, banks are required to inform the village when it takes over a property. The village also subscribes to a service that provides monthly updates about foreclosure numbers.

Cook County's foreclosure numbers for all properties have risen about 3.4 percent in the first half of 2012 from the same time period in 2011, according to data released by the Woodstock Institute, a nonprofit research and policy organization that tracks housing numbers.

Those numbers differ dramatically throughout Cook County, however. North Cook Country, for example, saw a 10 percent decrease during that time, whereas West Cook County had a 10 percent increase. According to the data, 22,365 properties went into foreclosure during the first half of 2012, which is up by 742 properties from last year.

From late 2010, the numbers in Chicago's six-county region continued to dip until the end of 2011 and have since risen, the data reveals. Oak Park's stable foreclosure filings and the rise in auctions follows trends seen across the region.

Oak Park, along with many other municipalities, implemented a vacant property ordinance, to address the problems often associated with foreclosed homes. Oak Park's ordinance allows the village to fine the property owner, whether it's the homeowner or the bank, for having an unkempt home and yard.

A majority of the foreclosed homes are sold at auction, Grossman said. A number of other properties are sold as a "short sale," in which a property not in foreclosure is purchased for less than the property owner owes. She said this option is not as typical, though, because the bank has to cover the remaining debt.

Spencer Cowan, vice president of the Woodstock Institute, said the numbers across the region are encouraging since foreclosure rates are stable and properties are being sold. Concerns, however, remain about particular areas that were hit hardest by the foreclosure crisis.

Regional data does not tell whole story," he said. According to the data, many counties that reflect positive numbers have pockets of neighborhoods that still suffer. "Recovery is not widespread across communities," Cowan said.

When asked if the numbers in Oak Park were typical, Grossman said the unstable housing market trends have made it hard for anyone to predict.

"I don't know what's typical in this market," she said.

Contact:
Email: anna@oakpark.com Twitter: @AnnaLothson

Reader Comments

106 Comments - Add Your Comment

Comment Policy

John Butch Murtagh from Oak Park, Illinois  

Posted: August 29th, 2012 12:40 AM

Archer Daniel -- never heard of the guy and neither has Google. His name is also not on the Repubs speakers list.

Brian Slowiak from Oak Park  

Posted: August 29th, 2012 12:20 AM

To Q: I hope you are watching tomorrow when Archer Daniel speaks. He is an Africans American. He was Obamas campaign chief for his last election. He is now a Republican with buyers remorse for his efforts to work for Obama.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: August 28th, 2012 11:21 PM

rj, glad someone was watching it. Did you laugh about Ann saying Mitt makes her laugh? She must have doubled over when Mitt came home telling her how he had his buddies hold a fellow student against his will so Mitt could cut his hair. When she mentioned about Mitt starting a business, I thought she was going to say he went into the barber business. Glad you had a good laugh out what they were trying to sell to other Republican's.

rj  

Posted: August 28th, 2012 10:28 PM

Q - Sorry, but you are so out to lunch. That black lady was Condoleeza Rice. I'm sure you never heard of her. 66th US Secretary of State. Do you ever go on vacation - like far away where there"s no internet. You may as well because you have many opinions none which are backed up as fact.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: August 28th, 2012 10:00 PM

Did anyone watch the FOX coverage of Ann Romney? They kept showing a Black woman applauding in favor of what Ann was saying. The woman looked a lot like Michelle Obama? Did anyone fall for that trick of FOX and the people in charge trying to convince you that Michelle Obama was really applauding what Ann Romney was saying? Republican's will do anything to get on top of anyone and that includes other Republican's.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: August 28th, 2012 9:55 PM

Cont... any good American will tell you it's privilege to serve your country so why take money just because the government has it that way. Republican's are not the last in line when money is being giving out by the government.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: August 28th, 2012 9:50 PM

4 Freedom, let me point out how the Republican's think big government is bad. The Governor from New Jersey was on FOX coverage of Ann telling American's why you should vote for Romney. The New Jersey Governor's father was a poor guy, and when he return home after serving his Country, he landed a job at a dairy and with his GI Bill, he was able to attend college. If the Governor's father is or was a Republican, whey would he want a hand out from the Government? After all, Cont..

ryan.buchner@gmail.com from Oak Park  

Posted: August 28th, 2012 8:18 PM

JBM, I think you need to go back even further in history with the introduction of the Fed and other policies before you can say that Bush 2 rollbacks are the culprit. We have become a society that relies on the government to make us "safe" so are guard is always down. And, when we do get screwed no one wants to blame themselves.

4 Freedom from Oak Park  

Posted: August 28th, 2012 8:09 PM

Q, you are making my point. You are referring to crony capitalism where business and government buddy up so that they both get bigger. That can only happen with big government which I don't support because it generally hurts everyone except the businesses.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: August 28th, 2012 7:51 PM

John Butch Murtagh, well said in your reply to 4 Freedom. I don't get the people who say government should stay out of big business, when you have pointed out how funny it is that the big business are the ones asking for government help. It would be nice if others got the humor from it, but I think they are still paying attention to big business saying to them, following what I say, and not what I do.

rj  

Posted: August 28th, 2012 6:05 PM

Kevin - I'll take right wing Koch brothers as opposed to Marxism backed by fascist Soros. Sounds like you're OK with Marxism as opposed to free market capitalism. Is that who you really are?

Kevin Cassidy from Oak Park  

Posted: August 28th, 2012 5:41 PM

@rj - That more doctors are out of the AMA than in comes as surprise to me and I'll take your word for that. Palmisano, however is a right wing activist with financial backing from the corporatist Koch brothers. Take his statements with regular doses of sodium chloride.

John Butch Murtagh from Oak Park, Illinois  

Posted: August 28th, 2012 5:25 PM

4 Freedom - there were regulations in place but they were stripped by Bush 2. That was followed by cutting SEC staff handicapping their investigation ability. He followed that with major tax cuts while funding two wars which resulted in bloated budgets. The history of regulation and deregulation is that the country is best without business being burdened with regulations. That always results in banks and investors screwing things up and having to go to the government for help. That help is usually money and increased oversight. The current argument by business is that the corruption, malfeasance, and a lack of professional risk management was a fluke. It wasn't -- and it nearly caused a depression. The time to relax regulation will come again. It just is not 2012!

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: August 28th, 2012 5:23 PM

Russ, the government allows only so much for the Chicken farmers to pump into their atomic Chicken's. If the factory farmers could make more pumping in harmful buy not deadly chemicals, they would. You don't have a choice when you don't have money. You buy the least expensive food products that don't provide all of the necessary nutrients needed. You have to stop thinking that everyone has enough money to give them a choice. The majority of people don't.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: August 28th, 2012 5:19 PM

Cont... Now the big guys have a lot of money that they would never have had if they did not take advantage of Clinton removing the loaning laws. Of course they are now broke like everyone else down the money chain and need to be bailed out by the government to get back into the money business. The big question is, whatever happened to the profits made from selling off the bundles of worthless investments? I'm sure that there are books and article that can explain there was never any money made.

Russ  

Posted: August 28th, 2012 5:19 PM

Q, have you seen the prices in Whole Foods lately? It is amazing what people will pay for organic stuff...free market at its best. As a consumer you have choice. $10 eggs from free range chickens massaged by Farmer John daily while being fed unicorn tears or the overly processed XXL Atomic Chicken Eggs pumped with Roids for $2.99 a dozen at Jewels. YOUR CHOICE. Govt doesn't need to make it for you.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: August 28th, 2012 5:15 PM

Cont... because the bigger institutions said keep lending it out, we have plenty. Do you think the people at the top of the money chain didn't think that the lending wouldn't have an adverse effect? Of course they knew, so they bundled the loans, got a great rating from their buddies at Moody and made the final profit from dumping the investments to people who thought if they had a good rating from Moody, it was a good buy. Cont...

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: August 28th, 2012 5:12 PM

ryan.buchner, you illustrate a very good point about a 20 year old with a family being able to buy an expensive home. This is why we need a government to protect ourselves from greedy businesses that will take advantage of people. It's obvious that there were a lot of people buying homes when they should have known better, but that didn't stop them from buying. Did the loan companies think they would get their money back? Of course they thought they would make money ... Cont..

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: August 28th, 2012 5:08 PM

Cont... someone against there own will? Any fun prank will do. How many other pranks for fun has Romney done that have been covered up with pay offs or knowing the right people to keep it private. If it ones a one time event that Romney has remorse over, people would like it if he would apologize for it and explain it instead of smiling it off.

ryan.buchner@gmail.com  

Posted: August 28th, 2012 5:05 PM

Q, good questions! All of the money went to the people and corporations selling their inflated properties and the banks that collected the fees. Responsible organizations are ones not propped up by government, but what incentives do the politicians have to help them? Remember most politicians are politicians. What we also need are responsible buyers. They got greedy too. If you can "afford" a house twice the size of your parents and you are in your 20's with 2 kids something probably isn't right

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: August 28th, 2012 5:05 PM

OPRFDad, I agree that Obama should not be President again, but I will take him over Romney. I'm sure people think Romney would do great with the Country, and the treatment of him enlisting his buddies to hold a man against his will so Romney could violated the man's rights as a citizen of the United States was just a prank by cutting off his hair but I consider it a sign of Romney's development in his earlier years. Do you have any college prank stories? Maybe something like holding ... Cont...

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: August 28th, 2012 4:58 PM

Russ, business is in business to make a profit. What would happen if the food business decided to charge 100 dollars for a loaf of bread?

4 Freedom  

Posted: August 28th, 2012 4:56 PM

JBM. I see your intentions, but please give me an example where government investments paid off and were not strife with corruption? We already have laws in place that are supposed to prevent near depression. Has that worked? Their intentions are good but the give false confidence and backfire. What is more powerful that an informed consumer, where the all the profits originate? Compare that to laws which always have unintended consequences.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: August 28th, 2012 4:54 PM

John Butch Murtagh, isn't it possible that a few business people gathered together and took advantage of the loaning rules to make a fortune from, and knew they would be bailed out? What happened to all of the money? It can't all be in the over valued and foreclosed homes. What would have happened if the irresponsible financial institutions would not have been bailed out? Couldn't the government have gone to the less known but financial responsible institutes to do be with?

Russ  

Posted: August 28th, 2012 4:54 PM

JBM, government over reach has a tendency to create perverse incentives that lead to bubbles and other market inefficiencies. The housing market is/was exhibit #1. The problem JBM is that "balanced" is not objectively measured. What may be balanced regulation to you is oppressive to industry participants. A free market unencumbered by govt regulation is the most balanced situation possible.

John Butch Murtagh from Oak Park, Illinois  

Posted: August 28th, 2012 4:37 PM

4 Freedom - BALANCED SENARIO Banks and Financial Industry use unleveraged funds to sell homes to unleveraged consumers, Bank and Financial Industry collapse, Government rescues them with Tarp, government loan of U.S. citizens and invests in business facing bankruptcy. Government enacts legislation to ensure that a near-depression event does not occur again. Banks, Financial, and Corporation recognize that they need oversight and support legislation.

John Butch Murtagh from Oak Park, Illinois  

Posted: August 28th, 2012 4:23 PM

RJ - Are you really saying that the ignorant government tricked the savvy real estate, development, construction, and financial industries into making the mistake of the century? Greed kept the housing bubble going despite warnings from the government.

John Butch Murtagh from Oak Park, Illinois  

Posted: August 28th, 2012 4:17 PM

OPRF Dad - I'd appreciate your not including me in your views of preference of posters.

OPRFDad  

Posted: August 28th, 2012 3:11 PM

I think we can all agree on one thing: Obama is to blame and needs to be removed from office.

rj  

Posted: August 28th, 2012 3:00 PM

Kevin -More doctors are not members of the AMA than are. Dr Palmisano, Former Pres of AMA warns, "Today we are perilously close to a true crisis as newly insured Americans enter the health care system & our population continues to age". Many current physicians are leaving practice early because of ACA. It will compromise the doctor-patient relationship & one surgeon, "under ACA, we're moving away from humanity based care & more towards the patient as a commodity" or unit,as mentioned in the bill

rj  

Posted: August 28th, 2012 2:35 PM

Troubled Asset Relief Program $700B, again largely due to the subprime mortgage scam that govt mandated, participated in and then blamed it on capitalism. Because of the internationalization of the financial system Billions of our $$ ended up in large banks in France & Germany while their participation in the bailout only helped their local bank not the US.The malaise in business now is because it lacks confidence in this over-reaching govt. Impending higher taxes, health care disaster-Govt.

Kevin Cassidy from Oak Park  

Posted: August 28th, 2012 2:31 PM

@rj -- not MSNBC but AMA http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/news/letters-editor/2012-07-06-wsj-ama-support-of-affordable-care-act.page

4 Freedom  

Posted: August 28th, 2012 2:13 PM

JBM, "balance" sounds great but what does that mean in reality? How to you define and control balance? I think the difference between republicans and democrats is blurring at least on the fiscal and international politics sides. Obama also likes to put money in private hands through bailouts and naive investments in green energy (which have failed miserably).

4 Freedom  

Posted: August 28th, 2012 2:04 PM

Q people do things well based on incentives. What incentive does a government inspector have to do a good job and how do you know they are doing it efficiently? I am not saying inspections are bad. Why not have someone else that has more accountability do the inspections? Like a non-profit for example. Hey, you could start a blog doing your own inspections? Then companies can put their Q approved labels on their products.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: August 28th, 2012 2:01 PM

Cont... John Butch Murtagh, Russ is correct, big business is only about profits, not social responsibility. We need better government that will work to recognize the needs what citizens need and not depend on what lobbyist tell them.

John Butch Murtagh from Oak Park, Illinois  

Posted: August 28th, 2012 2:00 PM

Russ, I am not anti-profit or anti-business. I responded to a post that implied that the country's problem, seemingly from the post - the only problem. That not true. Business is a major part of the country's financial malaise. TARP was welfare for businesses that could not make profits. When they failed they ran to the government for a bailout. Current politics is that the democrats favor handouts and republicans favor more money in private hands. I prefer balance. We cannot end the malaise without meaningful balance between the "Bigs".

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: August 28th, 2012 2:00 PM

Cont... what the insurance industry would refer to as minimal risk. People have been killed using their phones while driving. The pay out for accidents and death related to phone use while driving is lower then it would cost to lobby for a new law making it illegal to use a phone while operating a motor vehicle. Right now the law is up to local and State government. Cont...

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: August 28th, 2012 1:50 PM

Cont... wasn't the health concerns to the public that was the reason. Big business like Russ knows is all about making money. Why do you think we have posted highway speed limits, and laws to wear seat belts and car manufactures required to install safety devices. It's all for the insurance industry profits. We do need everything to increase our own safety, but that wasn't the reason big business made the changes. There is a very big business right now that is causing... Cont...

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: August 28th, 2012 1:45 PM

Big business does have competition, it's bigger business. The tobacco lobbyist had plenty of money, but the insurance business realized they could make more profits by paying out less for cigarette related health problems. The insurance business being the biggest business there is had to get rid of their losses so they got rid of the tobacco companies including prohibiting smoking in all public places. Sure, it's a real health concern, and does effect people around it, but that... Cont...

Russ  

Posted: August 28th, 2012 1:37 PM

Profit is not a bad word. Profit is what drives people to innovate and take risks. That profit motivation is why we still have the highest standard of living anywhere. Even our supposedly poor folks live decent lives - tvs, cellphones, air conditioning, clothes, etc.

Russ  

Posted: August 28th, 2012 1:34 PM

JBM, you can't seriously be claiming that there is some difference between unions spending tens of millions of dollars on lobbying versus big business? Business sole motivation is profit. PERIOD. No one starts a business w/o a profit motivation. NO ONE. Even non-profits have to operate in the black. The difference is that in the past, the US economy was isolated as other countries were too ass backwards to provide labor. We've moved from a US economy to a global economy.

John Butch Murtagh from Oak Park, Illinois  

Posted: August 28th, 2012 1:12 PM

I can understand why some posters might reject my comments on Big Business vs Big Government, but it is impossible for me to accept the use of union as a counterpoint re lobbying. Yes, unions lobby, so do senior citizens, religious organization, and small towns. But there is an issue of size and scope to be considered. Business has huge resources to lobby with money, contacts, jobs, etc. They are the powerhouse. There was day when businesses had more concern about the state of the United States. That ended in the 90's when industrialist, bankers, and investors went global. Since then their sole interest, with few exceptions, became profit and return and they use governments at all levels to churn the money. No longer is loyalty, patriotism, or unity part of their dictionary. Is our government too big? Maybe, but if current politics lead to a slash and burn strategy for the country, it will not be global businesses that get hurt.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: August 28th, 2012 11:05 AM

rj, if the FDA inspectors were reduced by 47 percent and weren't removed, where did they go? I have the V.A. plan for health care. Don't understand removing NASA, because how will we get more spy satellites without it.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: August 28th, 2012 11:00 AM

4 Freedom, I thought maybe you would have at least grasped a little bit about the importance of having inspectors, but I am finding it impossible for some people to understand things. In factories there are inspectors for the products they make. An inspector can't inspect every product being made so they take so many products and test them. It's the same with food and products in our Country that government employees do. You are wrong thinking government employees are a waste of money.

rj  

Posted: August 28th, 2012 10:37 AM

Kevin - Wow! You're still drinking that MSNBC snake oil. Can't believe you're still believing this hocus pocus potus.

Kevin Cassidy from Oak Park  

Posted: August 28th, 2012 10:09 AM

@rj -- The "Obama stole your Medicare" mantra is a Fox News bogey. Obama has proposed a $716 million saving over the next ten years by reducing payments to hospitals and secondary health care providers. The cost reductions focus on redundant testing and treatments and have been approved by the AMA and other health care organizations. The providers have agreed to smaller payments over 10 years in return for more patients with insurance,

rj  

Posted: August 28th, 2012 9:38 AM

Q - The FDA inspectors were reduced by 47 percent - inspectors were not removed. Obama has removed $716 Billion from Medicare though to fund Obamacare. Is that a problem for you. It will be when you need that stent or hip replacement. Then there's welfare to work and remember NASA.

4 Freedom from Oak Park  

Posted: August 28th, 2012 12:24 AM

Q, nothing is perfectly safe and it would take an infinite number of ineffecient and unaccountable government workers to insure everything is safe. So your plan is imperfect, costly and gives people a false sense of security. Plus what is unsafe to you may be safe for me. How about a better idea. You don't buy Chinese products and then the jerks don't get the profits you say are bad. Convince your friends to do the same. Apple has made changes because consumers demand it; now law!

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: August 28th, 2012 12:01 AM

Cont.. Country so they can make money to strengthen their Country? If you do, then you believe in big American corporations paying low wages to China to make cheap products for you to have. I prefer a government that does have departments that of the responsibility to make sure products and food are safe for its citizens.

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: August 27th, 2012 11:58 PM

Cont... the people who should be in government, but they are still favoring lobbyists over the needs of this country, but at least with have government workers who are responsible to make sure what we buy is safe, but they can only do so much because big business American corporations are not responsible for anyone because in their minds, what they do is justified because it's just business. rj and 4 Freedom, do you think it's fair that the Chinese government is polluting their own Cont....

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: August 27th, 2012 11:54 PM

Cont... As much as they can. To put it in perspective, China's government would rather bring in billions of dollars to strengthen their military, the stop polluting their country. They are well area of what is taking place, and American corporations don't care because they are profiting from it because American corporations can't increase their profits because they are regulated by the EPA, which big business doesn't like. The lobbyist the the politicians who enjoy the gifts are not Cont...

Q from Oak Park  

Posted: August 27th, 2012 11:51 PM

rj, 4 Freedom, you aren't getting what John Butch Murtagh is talking about or you really believe business is in favor of less profit. Bush removed FDA inspectors and China's garbage came in and killed people and pets. Do you really think the toy companies don't check the safety of the toys made in China? They do, but if the lawsuits are less then the profits, they take profit. You have to have a government to make sure the citizens are not hurt or killed by businesses who want to make Cont...

rj  

Posted: August 27th, 2012 11:26 PM

Come on JBM - The lobbyists and public unions are the life blood of the government trading favors to big business and unions for campaign donations. So yes government is the problem. All you point to could not have happened without the government profiting, promoting and gaining more power through these corrupt, crony practices. The government has never been bigger and more corrupt than now. The business of government is what you should be concerned about.

4 Freedom from Oak Park  

Posted: August 27th, 2012 11:12 PM

John, I agree with you that business should be more responsible; however, much of your argument ties back to big government. The poor product quality resulted in part from less competition due to taxes, quotas and such on foreign competition. The bubble was supported by the influence of Fannie Mae, the FED, tax incentives - all goverment. The lobbies you speak of wouldn't be possible if the big government you like didn't exist. I don't think the small government supporter are the ignorant ones.

John Butch Murtagh from Oak Park, Illinois  

Posted: August 27th, 2012 10:14 PM

To blame everything on the government is to give "Big Business" a free ride. Was it business that cleaned our air and rivers dirtied by business back in 60's, transportation safety in the 70's, and product program financial support to fight off Japanese imports in the 80's? Was it the government that allowed the country's product standards to collapse in the 90's? Was it the government that caused the economic collapse that led to TARP and "Big Business bailouts in the 00's? The business community big and small spends billions on lobbying and advertising to bronze corporations while blemishing governments. How many communities have been destroyed by mega business and malls that destroy local stores and caused higher unemployment. I am not anti-business. I spent 35 years in corporate life. But I am sick of the ignorance of "government bad" - business good. It is not just Democrats and Republican that are poisoning the country. Business is a partner in the poison. I mean really - What do you think all the lobbyists' cocktail parties and golf trips are all about?

rj  

Posted: August 27th, 2012 9:08 PM

@Observer - Yeah, government is the problem. If you haven't figured out how and why, and what you argue are tax breaks vs food stamps, you might consider a new "handle".

Observer  

Posted: August 27th, 2012 4:16 PM

RJ, you stated that "government is always the problem." You did not say anything that government overreaches or that they have a role, but you said that they are the problem. Now you say that government overreaches, but I have never heard you complain about the irrational tax breaks that many multination corporations receive or offshore tax havens. You cannot have your offshore tax havens and then complain about people receiving foodstamps.

Done from Oak Park  

Posted: August 24th, 2012 4:18 PM

Balla - guess you don't spend anytime at Longfellow.

Balla  

Posted: August 24th, 2012 3:05 PM

How come none of the basketball goals have hoops in Oak Park?

Fact Check w/some editorializing from Oak Park  

Posted: August 24th, 2012 12:47 PM

Its significant that Greenspan's appointment coincided with a decision by the Reagan appointed comptroller to allow national banks to become brokerage services. It was a major step in the roll back of the Glass-Steagal act, one in a series of de-regulatory decisions that led to the crash of 2008

Russ  

Posted: August 24th, 2012 11:31 AM

Finally, subprime actually helped delay a lot of foreclosures that probably should have occured years ago. Most subprime was refinancing for people already in financial trouble. They could always refinance their way out of problems. When the market crashed, they cuold no longer just refinance their creidt card debt, medical bills or whatever other problem they were having away hence all the foreclosures. Subprime was basically free market loan modifications of the time.

Russ  

Posted: August 24th, 2012 11:25 AM

The Tribune did a big piece in 2005 on how all the gangs stopped dealing drugs and got into mortgage fraud as the money was easier. Google it.

Russ  

Posted: August 24th, 2012 11:23 AM

all the SPECULATORS got caught holding the bag. Then they brought down the marginal and subprime homeowner's with them as they couldn't weather the declines in value and changing rates at the time. Now the marginal/subprime homeowners are affecting the typical homeowner because all the foreclosures eroded all the equity.

Russ  

Posted: August 24th, 2012 11:20 AM

It was just a perfect storm. CRA implementation then came low rates post 9/11. However, most of the blame does fall on Wall Street. In their quest for originations they kept lowering the underwriting standards. Fannie/Freddie jumped on bandwagon too. Ultimately, the low underwriting standards invited a ton of FRAUD by consumers, originators, and other industry participants. At first, something like 50% of the foreclosures were INVESTMENT PROPERTIES. The crash started when...

rj  

Posted: August 24th, 2012 11:14 AM

Observer - Perhaps you need to take a look in the mirror. Of course government has a role to protect & defend us in many matters as you mentioned. But in doing so it also has a tendency to over reach in all aspects of our lives as it has in the last ten years. Many of you do not have the common sense to see that they have over stepped & crossed the line long ago. You leftists are short on common sense but not on hatred and irrational behavior.

rj  

Posted: August 24th, 2012 11:04 AM

Of course in this bastion of hard core leftists I haven't been disappointed by the ignorant rants. Truth is not your friend It rarely lines up with a leftist's world view. During the 1990's US banking underwent consolidation reducing barriers to interstate banking. Riegle-Neal Act of 1994 changed the nature of bank mergers. I never denied Wall Street blame - you fail to recognize govts roll In laying the groundwork for this ultimate chaos while they ravaged it as well.

Tom from River Forest  

Posted: August 24th, 2012 10:33 AM

Fact check- A Fed Chair's term is only 4 years. Greenspan was reappointed by Clinton is both 1996 and 2000.

Tom from River Forest  

Posted: August 24th, 2012 10:28 AM

Not exactly - you keep hearing that canard about the CRA from the republicans and the right wing echo chamber so that they can avoid blaming wall street. Loans made by banks subject to the CRA could not be subprime. The Minneapolis Fed has produced a paper that quantitatively debunks the lie. Unfortunately, their website is down or I would provide the link.

Brian Slowiak from Oak Park  

Posted: August 24th, 2012 10:25 AM

Tom, yes, however Clinton was the presdent. He was in charge. In this sole incident, it is possible he made a mistake. We all make mistakes, but we all dont make mistakes that effect the country.

Fact Check from Oak Park  

Posted: August 24th, 2012 10:16 AM

Alan Greenspan was appointed Federal Reserve chairman by President Ronald Reagan in August 1987

Tom from River Forest  

Posted: August 24th, 2012 10:15 AM

rj - why do persist in proving my theory that you are the most ignorant person in all of OP and RF. Did your "Teabagger History of the US not have a section on the 1st and 2d Banks of the US? We have had federally charted, and therefore interstate, banks from pretty much the beginning of the republic.

Tom from River Forest  

Posted: August 24th, 2012 10:11 AM

Brian - Greenspan was a Clinton appointee as well as was Larry Summers, who as head of Treasury also was opposed to regulation of the OTC markets. In the end, Born just lost an inter-administration policy fight. It is only with the benefit of hindsight that we now know that she is right. Also, it is unfair to blame just Clinton. Phil Gramm as chair of Senate Banking refused to let anything out of the senate that regulated the market. Everybody screwed up.

Observer  

Posted: August 24th, 2012 10:04 AM

RJ, you are in idiot. If "government is always the problem not the solution" then I guess you would be drinking polluted water, you would be choking on the smog of the factories, and you would be working 80 plus hours a week for far less then you make now. Oh, and your grandparents would be burdened with stifling medical bills, there would be no assurances that your food is safe...the list is endless on how government is always the problem.

Brian Slowiak from Oak Park  

Posted: August 24th, 2012 9:59 AM

Tom< yes thank you for those points. However, Clinton would not stand with his appointee and took the side of Greenspan, placing her in the position to be terminated,so she resigned.Termination was possible and probable. Do you agree that this market should have been regulated under Clinton?

Not exactly  

Posted: August 24th, 2012 9:58 AM

I keep hearing, and not just from rj, that Congress forced banks to make loans to people with limited credit worthiness. CRA was passed in 1977. The blow up wasn't because of too much regulation but rather too little. Too few requirements in risk management & oversight, and not just from the government. Ratings agencies giving high ratings to loan pools so they could be rated as investment grade. Banks & investment houses tweaking mathematical models to allow more risk and more commissions.

rj  

Posted: August 24th, 2012 9:53 AM

Continued - Congress sees nothing wrong with maintaining a constant political influence over the US residential real estate market through the existence of Fannie & Freddie. Anything for votes and $$$ at our expense. Government is always the problem not the solution.

Not exactly  

Posted: August 24th, 2012 9:48 AM

environment that wanted less regulation, not more and that took the enormous profits being generated as justification of the value of the product.

rj  

Posted: August 24th, 2012 9:48 AM

Tom - educate yourself - In the 1990's interstate banking was finally allowed, creating nationwide banks of unprecedented size. Comgress forced banks to make home loans to people with limited credit worthiness, while encouraging Fannie & Freddie to take these dubious loans off their hands so banks could make more of them. Everyone involved profited until the crisis. Preserving massive govt intervention by preserving Fannie & Freddie is guarded by the left on Capitol Hill.

Not exactly  

Posted: August 24th, 2012 9:46 AM

The market exploded so quickly in the early to mid 2000s that regulation couldn't catch up. Home ownership has been good public policy. In my opinion ,the issue isn't in increasing home ownership levels, per se, but rather in not properly managing the risk through a number of tools available -- rate, counseling, etc. The markets were so drunk with the cash that was being generated that no one worried about cleaning up after the party. There were a few warnings but they were easy to ignore in an

Not exactly  

Posted: August 24th, 2012 9:41 AM

Dad, I get your point but I think there is more to it than that. The high risk loans weren't Fannie loans in the beginning and even in the end were more largely with other non-bank lenders (almost all of whom are now gone). While there may be some blame with CRA and Fannie, there is plenty to go around. CRA isn't responsible for the foreclosures in Oak Park, River Forest,etc. Homeowners were moved from traditional Fannie loans to option ARMS, interest only, etc. because the payout was bigger.

Tom from River Forest  

Posted: August 24th, 2012 9:20 AM

@Brian, just a couple of factual quibbles. Born was the Chairman of the CFTC, not the SEC and she served for 3 years. She was not forced out by Clinton, she resigned after she lost her fight with Greenspan regarding regulating the OTC market. @Not exactly, word to the wise, trying to provide rj with actual facts as opposed to the fairy takes that he heard on Fox is a Sisyphean task.

Dad from OPRF  

Posted: August 24th, 2012 8:49 AM

cont...ownership has good public policy. With that explicit guarantee in place Wall Street felt like it could not lose. Why not push the envelope? BTW...who was going to regulate what? G wanted this activity, banks loved the commissions, people got homes and equity loans. Imagine a politician saying stop...oh that happen in 2003 and he was laughed at and his own party sent him packing...That was George W Bush. Many guilty parties contributed to the mess we have.

Dad from OPRF  

Posted: August 24th, 2012 8:43 AM

@ Not...Your analysis is spot on and technically correct, however does miss the environment Wall Street was in. We know that Lehman caused most of this but had opportunities to sell in the month before it went belly up. It kept refusing to sell because it thought the G would come in a back-stop them. When Paulsen correctly did not...KABOOM! So why did Wall Street act greedy? With CRA and Fannie in place there was no sense of failure. Both Bush and Clinton pushed more home ..

Brian Slowiak from Oak Park  

Posted: August 24th, 2012 7:24 AM

Her name is Brooksley Born. She was a Clinton appointee to the Security Exchange Commission. She wanted to regulate the derivative market. She lasted a year before bring pushed out by Clinton, who appointed her. The PBS specaial is available at the library, titled, "The Warning"Tim Geitner and company knew all about this back then as well as now.Might have the last name misspelled.

Not exactly  

Posted: August 24th, 2012 7:11 AM

Mortgages followed the same model as credit default swaps, other CDOs, etc. It's inaccurate to treat subprime mortgages as separate from the rest of these. It's legalized gambling sold to investors and sovereign funds by commission driven salesmen on Wall Street. Blaming the CRA for the whole mess doesn't match the facts. Bonuses in the $100 millions were paid to people selling these pools. They created demand. No demand=no supply. It's that simple. This mess was created by Wall Street greed.

Not exactly  

Posted: August 24th, 2012 7:03 AM

The pressure to make subprime loans came from Wall Street's greed. More new ways to make loans with reduced documentation. Wall Street, not the government or CRA, created the products and put them in the market place. Since they sold off the risk in the secondary market they didn't care if the loans performed or not as long as there were more to sell. They built a supply channel that rewarded cheating at every level and then pretended to be surprised at the end. I'm familiar with the process.

rj  

Posted: August 24th, 2012 1:58 AM

Continued - this is all the result of the Community Reinvestment Act. And the govt is gearing up to do this again. Again, loans specifically to minorities, called the Consumers Finance Protection Bureau designed by Elizabeth Warren. And wait for the govt sponsored student loan program to hit the fan. And, of course, we'll be too busy to notice because we'll be trying to find a doctor to treat us thanks to ACA. But there is hope - vote for real change-Obama Must Go.

rj  

Posted: August 24th, 2012 1:47 AM

Not exactly -Wall St banks, under threat of the federal govt, made these loans. They pooled these worthless pieces of paper, mortgages, into derivatives, in consort with Fannie & Freddie. They were packaged & sold to unsuspecting investors & those investors repackaged & resold again. When no more suckers left to buy the 5 Wall St banks were holding the bag. They went under or were bailed out by govt. You were told the banks, unbeknownst to the govt, we're engaging in predatory lending.

Not exactly  

Posted: August 23rd, 2012 5:29 PM

the result of CRA policies but rather the result of unregulated markets, lack of oversight, shady deals with ratings agencies, and greed.

Not exactly  

Posted: August 23rd, 2012 5:28 PM

...with that, prices (rates) and terms got continually more aggressive. Underwriting standards and interest rates came from models instead of experience, fuelled by a desire on Wall Street to deliver more products to sell. Most of this happened before Fannie and Freddie were involved at all. It eventually spilled over into the mainstream, again driven by demand from Wall Street. They weren't concerned about the borrowers, the homes, or the risk. They were chasing commissions. Those loans aren't

Not exactly  

Posted: August 23rd, 2012 5:24 PM

... vehicles. They packaged and sold the loans in huge bundles and separated the ownership of the risk from the originators. They used mathematical models to value these pools of loans based on expected performance. This system blew up in the late 1990s and many of these large subprime lenders went out of business virtually overnight. But Wall Street was still selling the product so they developed other channels of getting the loans. Competition for loan pools to seel became more fierce and ...

Not exactly  

Posted: August 23rd, 2012 5:19 PM

The subprime explosion didn't begin with banks and lenders, it began on Wall Street. It existed for more than 50 years but on a relatively small scale and the companies that originated the loans owned them. They charged high rates to compensate for the additional risk. Beginning in the middle to late 90s new companies came into existence that specialized in expanded credit criteria. There were a bunch of these companies and they sprung up to satisfy a demand from Wall Street for investment ...

Kevin Cassidy from Oak Park  

Posted: August 23rd, 2012 4:53 PM

@ Data Guy -- This Trulia map shows a pretty even distribution of foreclosures across the village. Your info may be more specific but at first glance... http://www.trulia.com/for_sale/Oak_Park,IL/x_map/foreclosure_lt

Data Guy from OP  

Posted: August 23rd, 2012 4:46 PM

Most fo the foreclosed homes are east of Ridgeland.

Observer  

Posted: August 22nd, 2012 10:40 PM

RJ, 30 years span both Republican and Democrats. There is plenty of blame to go around on both sides. The only way this problem will be solved is by compromise and stiff penalties for people who commit fraud. All of which is lacking right now. Citibank, JP Morgan, BofA, have all been slapped by the SEC, but no one went to jail and they continue to break the law.

Cdonovan2  

Posted: August 22nd, 2012 4:46 PM

RJ, to a limited extent you have some valid points; recommend that you read Reckle$$ Endangement by Gretchen Morgenson for better idea. One thing for sure, the crisis is not a result of CRA, in fact most of the bad mortgages during the bubble were originated by lenders like Countrywide that were not governed by CRA regulations. Other banks like Chase and Citi then purchased the loans to get CRA credit without due diligence of the quality of the loans. Same with the GSEs buying the bonds.

Russ  

Posted: August 22nd, 2012 4:32 PM

Housing market crashed because of a perfect storm of bad govt policies, lax enforcement of regulations, and Wall Street's insatiable appetite for mortgage backed securities (which led to lax underwriting standards). There was also borrower greed as well. The dirty little secret is the amount of fraud (liar loans, flipping properties, etc) that was going on in the housing market from consumers all the way up to the banks. That is what brought the house of cards down originally.

rj  

Posted: August 22nd, 2012 4:07 PM

Observer- Just facts -Defaults & foreclosures in "subprime" housing market is result of 30 yrs of govt policy that forced banks to make bad loans to un-creditworthy borrowers. The 1977 Community Reinvestment Act compelled banks to make these loans. Banks were placed in Catch 22 situation by CRA. Comply & suffer from loan defaults. Don't comply & face financial penalties. There's blame to go around but let's get the story straight.

Observer  

Posted: August 22nd, 2012 3:28 PM

RJ, stop playing the blame game and realize that the cause of the problem lands on the feet of both Democrats and Republicans. Let us not forget the role bankers and mortgage brokers that committed fraud played in this fiasco. The only thing that is going to solve this problem is compromise which is lacking from both parties. Also, the vacant property ordinance only applies to properties owned by individuals, not banks.

rj  

Posted: August 22nd, 2012 12:39 PM

Thank You - Bill Clinton, Franklin Raines, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd/Fannie Mae Freddie Mac, community organizers Acorn, Obama. Bush tried to create better transparency to no avail with the D Congress.

Cdonovan2  

Posted: August 22nd, 2012 10:39 AM

What the article didn't report is the auctions on home values, and that should be of major concern to all, especially condo owners. Many units up for judicial sale are condos; the lender will bid the judgment amount. Subsequent to the judicial sale the property will be resold, and too often that is significantly less than the former value. This in turn drives down the value of the other units and the resale becomes the comparable price for similar units. The result is more underwater houses.

Kevin Cassidy from Oak Park  

Posted: August 22nd, 2012 10:05 AM

Thank you, Paine Webber!!

steve  

Posted: August 22nd, 2012 9:47 AM

And this should surprise nobody. 10 yrs from now, due to inflated taxes in Oak Park: 1) the population will be less. 2) home prices will underperform surronding suburbs. 3) very simple

Julie Chyna from Oak Park  

Posted: August 22nd, 2012 9:44 AM

That vacant property ordinance is a joke. It was put in place to make us think the Village is taking action, but it doesn't happen in practice. We've called the Village multiple times over the last few years about dilapidated, foreclosed properties on our block, and all they do is shrug and say, "Well, the bank owns it do we can't really do anything about it." We also have a house on our block that is full of wildlife, and the Village does nothing. It's a health and safety hazard.

Done from Oak Park  

Posted: August 22nd, 2012 9:35 AM

And the slide continues. It's a damn shame that we are more concerned with highrises and government grants than coming up with a solution to keep families in their homes. I'd be curious to know where these homes are distributed across the village.

Anne Jordan-Baker from Oak Park  

Posted: August 22nd, 2012 9:29 AM

I live near 1145 S. Humphrey, a house that has apparently been in foreclosure for years and looks it. The coach house, where the raccoons live, is in extreme disrepair, with the roof about to collapse. As a parent, I am also concerned about the many children in our neighborhood who play outside and are exposed to the raccoons, which can be very aggressive. I'm sure this is not a unique situation in OP and hope the village figures out how to address these issues before people get hurt.

Find a garage sale near you!

In search of local garage sales? Find out what sales are happening near you on our map and listing page.

Quick Links

Sign-up to get the latest news updates for Oak Park and River Forest.


            
SubscribeClassifieds
Photo storeContact us
Submit Letter To The Editor

Latest Comments