Mortgages in walkable areas less likely to default.

[afx114]

Curious what the piggies think of this:

Looking at data from more than 40,000 mortgages throughout Chicago, San Francisco and Jacksonville, Fla., the researchers behind the Location Efficiency and Mortgage Default report found that the rate of mortgage foreclosure actually decreased in neighborhoods that were more compact, walkable and connected to public transportation (after accounting for important factors like income). According to a recent NRDC release:

“The effect of location efficiency (walkability) is clear when comparing foreclosure probabilities for two homebuyers with exactly the same profile in terms of credit score, debt-to-income ratio, and loan-to-value ratio in differing neighborhoods. The research shows that the buyer in the more location efficient area will be less likely to default.”

(full story)

So is this a manifestation of the coming decline of suburbia, or is it commie anti-car propaganda? As a long-time fence sitter hoping to buy in a “walkable” area, I can profess that the pickings are slim. So are there less foreclosures in walkable areas simply because they are walkable, or is it due to other reasons?

[temeculaguy]

Oh dear god, these people figured out another reason come out from under their rock again.

I’m not reading the enire study because I’ve read similar versions a hundred times, feel free to point out if they covered this but I doubt they did.

Walkable areas in san Francisco and Chicago tend to be older areas, older areas are less likely to be purchased during the bubble tha suburbs. That’s it, magic. Comparing two houses that both have a mortgage is not an equal comparison, comparing two houses purchased on the same date, with the same debt ratio is. Notice they didn’t include bubble built walkable areas like downtown san diego.

The study was done by the national resource defense council (kinda sounds like a government agency, but it’s an environmentalist organization akin to greenpeace) which has an agenda. I don’t hate them, they believe what they believe, some of it’s o.k., but lobby groups with agendas need to be taken with a grain of salt especailly when they produce report on economic issues and get out of their area of expertise, like, say, global warming.

[temeculaguy]

Oh dear god, these people figured out another reason come out from under their rock again.

I’m not reading the enire study because I’ve read similar versions a hundred times, feel free to point out if they covered this but I doubt they did.

Walkable areas in san Francisco and Chicago tend to be older areas, older areas are less likely to be purchased during the bubble tha suburbs. That’s it, magic. Comparing two houses that both have a mortgage is not an equal comparison, comparing two houses purchased on the same date, with the same debt ratio is. Notice they didn’t include bubble built walkable areas like downtown san diego.

The study was done by the national resource defense council (kinda sounds like a government agency, but it’s an environmentalist organization akin to greenpeace) which has an agenda. I don’t hate them, they believe what they believe, some of it’s o.k., but lobby groups with agendas need to be taken with a grain of salt especailly when they produce report on economic issues and get out of their area of expertise, like, say, global warming.

[temeculaguy]

Oh dear god, these people figured out another reason come out from under their rock again.

I’m not reading the enire study because I’ve read similar versions a hundred times, feel free to point out if they covered this but I doubt they did.

Walkable areas in san Francisco and Chicago tend to be older areas, older areas are less likely to be purchased during the bubble tha suburbs. That’s it, magic. Comparing two houses that both have a mortgage is not an equal comparison, comparing two houses purchased on the same date, with the same debt ratio is. Notice they didn’t include bubble built walkable areas like downtown san diego.

The study was done by the national resource defense council (kinda sounds like a government agency, but it’s an environmentalist organization akin to greenpeace) which has an agenda. I don’t hate them, they believe what they believe, some of it’s o.k., but lobby groups with agendas need to be taken with a grain of salt especailly when they produce report on economic issues and get out of their area of expertise, like, say, global warming.

[temeculaguy]

Oh dear god, these people figured out another reason come out from under their rock again.

I’m not reading the enire study because I’ve read similar versions a hundred times, feel free to point out if they covered this but I doubt they did.

Walkable areas in san Francisco and Chicago tend to be older areas, older areas are less likely to be purchased during the bubble tha suburbs. That’s it, magic. Comparing two houses that both have a mortgage is not an equal comparison, comparing two houses purchased on the same date, with the same debt ratio is. Notice they didn’t include bubble built walkable areas like downtown san diego.

The study was done by the national resource defense council (kinda sounds like a government agency, but it’s an environmentalist organization akin to greenpeace) which has an agenda. I don’t hate them, they believe what they believe, some of it’s o.k., but lobby groups with agendas need to be taken with a grain of salt especailly when they produce report on economic issues and get out of their area of expertise, like, say, global warming.

[temeculaguy]

Oh dear god, these people figured out another reason come out from under their rock again.

I’m not reading the enire study because I’ve read similar versions a hundred times, feel free to point out if they covered this but I doubt they did.

Walkable areas in san Francisco and Chicago tend to be older areas, older areas are less likely to be purchased during the bubble tha suburbs. That’s it, magic. Comparing two houses that both have a mortgage is not an equal comparison, comparing two houses purchased on the same date, with the same debt ratio is. Notice they didn’t include bubble built walkable areas like downtown san diego.

The study was done by the national resource defense council (kinda sounds like a government agency, but it’s an environmentalist organization akin to greenpeace) which has an agenda. I don’t hate them, they believe what they believe, some of it’s o.k., but lobby groups with agendas need to be taken with a grain of salt especailly when they produce report on economic issues and get out of their area of expertise, like, say, global warming.

[sdrealtor]

Downtown SD is quite walkable isnt it?

[sdrealtor]

Downtown SD is quite walkable isnt it?

[sdrealtor]

Downtown SD is quite walkable isnt it?

[sdrealtor]

Downtown SD is quite walkable isnt it?

[sdrealtor]

Downtown SD is quite walkable isnt it?

[briansd1]

[quote=sdrealtor]Downtown SD is quite walkable isnt it?[/quote]

Yes… the foreclosure downtown are much higher than in the suburbs. I think that was your point sdrealtor. 🙂

TG is correct in his analysis. Mortgages that were originated closest to the peak, at the highest loan to value ratio, are more likely to default. Also the lower the positive equity, or the higher the negative equity, as a proportion to value, the higher the likelihood of default.

I glanced over the report and it’s full of bull (and I’m an advocate of a walkable neighborhood because I find the suburbs lifeless and boring).

San Diego is not a walkable city. Period. If you live in the Village of La Jolla and never get out of there, you can walk. Or if you in the Marina District Downtown, you can walk. But you still need a car and a parking space.

Therefore, car dependency is a given in San Diego. Only the old cities in America are truly walkable (SF, Chicago, DC, NY, Boston, Philly) where you don’t need a car.

But even DC is not really walkable because the street are so wide. The monuments are too large and not on an intimate human scale. Plus the area is a large spread out metro area. In order to get around, you still need a car, even if you don’t use it as much.

[briansd1]

[quote=sdrealtor]Downtown SD is quite walkable isnt it?[/quote]

Yes… the foreclosure downtown are much higher than in the suburbs. I think that was your point sdrealtor. 🙂

TG is correct in his analysis. Mortgages that were originated closest to the peak, at the highest loan to value ratio, are more likely to default. Also the lower the positive equity, or the higher the negative equity, as a proportion to value, the higher the likelihood of default.

I glanced over the report and it’s full of bull (and I’m an advocate of a walkable neighborhood because I find the suburbs lifeless and boring).

San Diego is not a walkable city. Period. If you live in the Village of La Jolla and never get out of there, you can walk. Or if you in the Marina District Downtown, you can walk. But you still need a car and a parking space.

Therefore, car dependency is a given in San Diego. Only the old cities in America are truly walkable (SF, Chicago, DC, NY, Boston, Philly) where you don’t need a car.

But even DC is not really walkable because the street are so wide. The monuments are too large and not on an intimate human scale. Plus the area is a large spread out metro area. In order to get around, you still need a car, even if you don’t use it as much.

[briansd1]

[quote=sdrealtor]Downtown SD is quite walkable isnt it?[/quote]

Yes… the foreclosure downtown are much higher than in the suburbs. I think that was your point sdrealtor. 🙂

TG is correct in his analysis. Mortgages that were originated closest to the peak, at the highest loan to value ratio, are more likely to default. Also the lower the positive equity, or the higher the negative equity, as a proportion to value, the higher the likelihood of default.

I glanced over the report and it’s full of bull (and I’m an advocate of a walkable neighborhood because I find the suburbs lifeless and boring).

San Diego is not a walkable city. Period. If you live in the Village of La Jolla and never get out of there, you can walk. Or if you in the Marina District Downtown, you can walk. But you still need a car and a parking space.

Therefore, car dependency is a given in San Diego. Only the old cities in America are truly walkable (SF, Chicago, DC, NY, Boston, Philly) where you don’t need a car.

But even DC is not really walkable because the street are so wide. The monuments are too large and not on an intimate human scale. Plus the area is a large spread out metro area. In order to get around, you still need a car, even if you don’t use it as much.

[briansd1]

[quote=sdrealtor]Downtown SD is quite walkable isnt it?[/quote]

Yes… the foreclosure downtown are much higher than in the suburbs. I think that was your point sdrealtor. 🙂

TG is correct in his analysis. Mortgages that were originated closest to the peak, at the highest loan to value ratio, are more likely to default. Also the lower the positive equity, or the higher the negative equity, as a proportion to value, the higher the likelihood of default.

I glanced over the report and it’s full of bull (and I’m an advocate of a walkable neighborhood because I find the suburbs lifeless and boring).

San Diego is not a walkable city. Period. If you live in the Village of La Jolla and never get out of there, you can walk. Or if you in the Marina District Downtown, you can walk. But you still need a car and a parking space.

Therefore, car dependency is a given in San Diego. Only the old cities in America are truly walkable (SF, Chicago, DC, NY, Boston, Philly) where you don’t need a car.

But even DC is not really walkable because the street are so wide. The monuments are too large and not on an intimate human scale. Plus the area is a large spread out metro area. In order to get around, you still need a car, even if you don’t use it as much.

[Author]

Posts