Why should RED-LINING be illegal?

[Loren Pechtel]

Technically, redlining was literally a bank circling a neighborhood on a map that they didn't want to do business with. It was generally older areas with older homes. It was thought that these homes couldn't support a 30 year economic life (banks like to finance assets that have a longer life than the term of their loan). These areas tended to be owned by minorities.

Quite sensible. Like you will have quite a time getting a loan to buy an older mobile home. While it shouldn't be decided at the neighborhood level it's completely reasonable for a bank to not loan on an asset that won't outlast the loan.

 

[Toni]

Maybe you don’t understand what redlining means.

Modern-day redlining: How banks block people of color from homeownership

Fifty years after the federal Fair Housing Act banned racial discrimination in lending, African Americans and Latinos continue to be routinely denied

www.chicagotribune.com

This is truly worth the read. Unfortunately my ability to cut and paste is really limited at the moment.

Sorry, but that article is long on disparate impact = discrimination and short on documentation.

"I had a fair amount of savings and still had so much trouble just left and right," said Rachelle Faroul, a 33-year-old black woman who was rejected twice by lenders when she tried to buy a brick row house close to Malcolm X Park in Philadelphia, where African Americans were 2.7 times as likely as whites to be denied a conventional mortgage.

But no evidence about qualifications. Those who have little experience with the mortgage process are a lot more likely to be denied--because they don't know the things that will trip them up. The experienced people are much more likely to know what will stop them and not try in the first place if they won't qualify.

No matter their location, loan applicants told similar stories, describing an uphill battle with loan officers who they said seemed to be fishing for a reason to say no.

Duh! That's their job! They are making sure there is no reason to say no.

When Faroul applied for a loan in April 2016, she thought she was an ideal candidate. She holds a degree from Northwestern University, had a good credit score and estimates she was making $60,000 a year while teaching computer programming as a contractor for Rutgers University. Still, her initial loan application was denied by Philadelphia Mortgage Advisors, an independent broker that made nearly 90 percent of its loans to whites in 2015 and 2016.

"I'm sorry," broker Angela Tobin wrote to Faroul in an email. Faroul's contract income wasn't consistent enough, she said. So Faroul got a full-time job at the University of Pennsylvania managing a million-dollar grant.

Keyword: Contractor

The rules are more strict for those who don't have a standard paycheck.

Eventually, an unpaid $284 electric bill appeared on Faroul's credit report. She paid the bill right away, but it still tanked her credit score, and the bank said it couldn't move forward.

Duh, again! Paying the bill doesn't make the credit ding go away. If you can't even keep your finances straight while applying why do you think they should give you a mortgage?

The loan officer had "completely stopped answering Rachelle's phone calls, just ignored all of them," Franz said. "And then I called, and he answered almost immediately. And is so friendly."

Yet another duh! Why would a loan officer waste time on an application that had already been rejected?

Key word: racism

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Close enough. There is no economic incentive for the private market to provide flood insurance because the at risk group is too small and too well defined. Banks require flood insurance before they issue a loan to anyone in the "Hundred Year" flood plain. This greatly increases the premium paying base. Development which increases the rate of runoff has expanded this plain, which has led to more regulation of land use.
Government flood insurance allows people to invest in property which no private insurer would touch, in other words, land that was reclined long before there was such a term.

If it works for geographically unviable land, it would work for the economically unviable land as well.

But why should we be subsidizing living on geographically nonviable land??

(Although I would like to see how they're doing their 100-year calculations. When this place was built we had to have flood insurance that year. The next year we weren't in the 100-year floodplain any more and we dropped it. Looking at the area it would be nearly impossible to flood our house--it would take either a wall of water or an incredible amount of it to avoid it simply running down the street. Our fence is one block higher on the west side than the east side and I know at least some other houses on the street are the same way--while I've never measured it there's no question we are multiple feet higher than half a block away. While we don't get a lot of rain here it can be very concentrated and I certainly would not consider buying a house where the water wouldn't just run down the street.)

 

[Bronzeage]

Close enough. There is no economic incentive for the private market to provide flood insurance because the at risk group is too small and too well defined. Banks require flood insurance before they issue a loan to anyone in the "Hundred Year" flood plain. This greatly increases the premium paying base. Development which increases the rate of runoff has expanded this plain, which has led to more regulation of land use.
Government flood insurance allows people to invest in property which no private insurer would touch, in other words, land that was reclined long before there was such a term.

If it works for geographically unviable land, it would work for the economically unviable land as well.

But why should we be subsidizing living on geographically nonviable land??

(Although I would like to see how they're doing their 100-year calculations. When this place was built we had to have flood insurance that year. The next year we weren't in the 100-year floodplain any more and we dropped it. Looking at the area it would be nearly impossible to flood our house--it would take either a wall of water or an incredible amount of it to avoid it simply running down the street. Our fence is one block higher on the west side than the east side and I know at least some other houses on the street are the same way--while I've never measured it there's no question we are multiple feet higher than half a block away. While we don't get a lot of rain here it can be very concentrated and I certainly would not consider buying a house where the water wouldn't just run down the street.)

I don't think the government should be living on geographically nonviable land, but as the old saying goes, "It's not what you know, but who you know." Back when the Indonesian Tsunami was all in the news, a conservative friend thought it was strange that in the US, only rich people could afford water front property, but over there it seemed to be the poorest. I tried to explain how government intervention in the marketplace for the benefit of people like her was the reason. She couldn't understand what I was saying.


The hundred year flood plain is a standard model used by civil engineers. It's a combination of history and statistical projection. In my lifetime, I've seen three 100 year floods, for what that's worth.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Close enough. There is no economic incentive for the private market to provide flood insurance because the at risk group is too small and too well defined. Banks require flood insurance before they issue a loan to anyone in the "Hundred Year" flood plain. This greatly increases the premium paying base. Development which increases the rate of runoff has expanded this plain, which has led to more regulation of land use.
Government flood insurance allows people to invest in property which no private insurer would touch, in other words, land that was reclined long before there was such a term.

If it works for geographically unviable land, it would work for the economically unviable land as well.

But why should we be subsidizing living on geographically nonviable land??

(Although I would like to see how they're doing their 100-year calculations. When this place was built we had to have flood insurance that year. The next year we weren't in the 100-year floodplain any more and we dropped it. Looking at the area it would be nearly impossible to flood our house--it would take either a wall of water or an incredible amount of it to avoid it simply running down the street. Our fence is one block higher on the west side than the east side and I know at least some other houses on the street are the same way--while I've never measured it there's no question we are multiple feet higher than half a block away. While we don't get a lot of rain here it can be very concentrated and I certainly would not consider buying a house where the water wouldn't just run down the street.)

I don't think the government should be living on geographically nonviable land, but as the old saying goes, "It's not what you know, but who you know." Back when the Indonesian Tsunami was all in the news, a conservative friend thought it was strange that in the US, only rich people could afford water front property, but over there it seemed to be the poorest. I tried to explain how government intervention in the marketplace for the benefit of people like her was the reason. She couldn't understand what I was saying.

Yeah, for many years now I have been saying that if your property is destroyed by a large-area natural disaster the land should be zoned such that only structures that can stand up to that disaster are allowed to be built there, other than expendable stuff that is specifically is not permitted long term inhabitation. (Thus you can have a business renting out beachfront cabanas or bungalows or the like, but you simply have to consider their periodic destruction a normal part of business.)

The hundred year flood plain is a standard model used by civil engineers. It's a combination of history and statistical projection. In my lifetime, I've seen three 100 year floods, for what that's worth.

What I'm saying about the local situation is that I can't imagine the area flooding because it's not a plain. Dump a bunch of water on it and it goes running down the gullies (that is, before the builder graded the land.) I most certainly would not want to be standing in such a gully in a downpour, but I would be at no flood risk standing between two gullies. The way they grade the land during construction ends up being the streets are the gullies, the houses are the space between the gullies. Our old house was in similar terrain--and maybe once a year enough water would go down the main streets to make them impassable, but the neighborhood never had water even reaching the sidewalk. Since we bought this place I've never seen that kind of water on the main streets but the pattern remains--the housing areas simply do not have long enough sections to build up that kind of water.

You do see people in the city that got flooded now and then, but they're always people living in flatter areas.

 

[Bronzeage]

Close enough. There is no economic incentive for the private market to provide flood insurance because the at risk group is too small and too well defined. Banks require flood insurance before they issue a loan to anyone in the "Hundred Year" flood plain. This greatly increases the premium paying base. Development which increases the rate of runoff has expanded this plain, which has led to more regulation of land use.
Government flood insurance allows people to invest in property which no private insurer would touch, in other words, land that was reclined long before there was such a term.

If it works for geographically unviable land, it would work for the economically unviable land as well.

But why should we be subsidizing living on geographically nonviable land??

(Although I would like to see how they're doing their 100-year calculations. When this place was built we had to have flood insurance that year. The next year we weren't in the 100-year floodplain any more and we dropped it. Looking at the area it would be nearly impossible to flood our house--it would take either a wall of water or an incredible amount of it to avoid it simply running down the street. Our fence is one block higher on the west side than the east side and I know at least some other houses on the street are the same way--while I've never measured it there's no question we are multiple feet higher than half a block away. While we don't get a lot of rain here it can be very concentrated and I certainly would not consider buying a house where the water wouldn't just run down the street.)

I don't think the government should be living on geographically nonviable land, but as the old saying goes, "It's not what you know, but who you know." Back when the Indonesian Tsunami was all in the news, a conservative friend thought it was strange that in the US, only rich people could afford water front property, but over there it seemed to be the poorest. I tried to explain how government intervention in the marketplace for the benefit of people like her was the reason. She couldn't understand what I was saying.

Yeah, for many years now I have been saying that if your property is destroyed by a large-area natural disaster the land should be zoned such that only structures that can stand up to that disaster are allowed to be built there, other than expendable stuff that is specifically is not permitted long term inhabitation. (Thus you can have a business renting out beachfront cabanas or bungalows or the like, but you simply have to consider their periodic destruction a normal part of business.)

The hundred year flood plain is a standard model used by civil engineers. It's a combination of history and statistical projection. In my lifetime, I've seen three 100 year floods, for what that's worth.

What I'm saying about the local situation is that I can't imagine the area flooding because it's not a plain. Dump a bunch of water on it and it goes running down the gullies (that is, before the builder graded the land.) I most certainly would not want to be standing in such a gully in a downpour, but I would be at no flood risk standing between two gullies. The way they grade the land during construction ends up being the streets are the gullies, the houses are the space between the gullies. Our old house was in similar terrain--and maybe once a year enough water would go down the main streets to make them impassable, but the neighborhood never had water even reaching the sidewalk. Since we bought this place I've never seen that kind of water on the main streets but the pattern remains--the housing areas simply do not have long enough sections to build up that kind of water.

You do see people in the city that got flooded now and then, but they're always people living in flatter areas.

Hydrology is a subset of civil engineering and like all engineering, there is a balance between risk, precaution, and cost. Your proposal for disaster resistance would make a house in Wichita, Kansas very expensive it had to be able to stand up to a F3 tornado.

A natural environment can absorb a lot of water before it appears in the drainage system. Development such as roofs and roads means water runs more directly into the drainage and down stream. In my neighborhood, there are now laws restricting land use. If someone wants to put a shopping center in a cow pasture, an engineer has to determine what the current rate of water run is and the developer has to maintain this rate for whatever is built. It's common to see a small pond in the corner of a parking lot. The parking lot drains into the pond and water outflow is restricted. When it quits raining, the pond drains slowly, imitating the former cow pasture. This requirement has made many shopping center projects unviable because after the pond takes it's share of the land, there's not enough left for a profitable operation. In some places, there is a large vault under the parking lot, which collects the water. It's expensive, but you get more parking spaces. That's not practical if the water table is close to the surface because the vault would float up out of the ground when it was empty.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Hydrology is a subset of civil engineering and like all engineering, there is a balance between risk, precaution, and cost. Your proposal for disaster resistance would make a house in Wichita, Kansas very expensive it had to be able to stand up to a F3 tornado.

It would only make building a house expensive--I'm not saying anything needs to be retrofit. And it's not that expensive to build for a F3. Concrete domes will generally shrug off a F5. It won't look anything like a conventional house but it will work.

A natural environment can absorb a lot of water before it appears in the drainage system. Development such as roofs and roads means water runs more directly into the drainage and down stream. In my neighborhood, there are now laws restricting land use. If someone wants to put a shopping center in a cow pasture, an engineer has to determine what the current rate of water run is and the developer has to maintain this rate for whatever is built. It's common to see a small pond in the corner of a parking lot. The parking lot drains into the pond and water outflow is restricted. When it quits raining, the pond drains slowly, imitating the former cow pasture. This requirement has made many shopping center projects unviable because after the pond takes it's share of the land, there's not enough left for a profitable operation. In some places, there is a large vault under the parking lot, which collects the water. It's expensive, but you get more parking spaces. That's not practical if the water table is close to the surface because the vault would float up out of the ground when it was empty.

Around here water absorption into the ground in a heavy rain is limited, the water runs off. Woe to anyone in the path it runs off to, but in most of the city you just make sure there's plenty of place to run off to and that the houses are a bit above the streets. A cul-de-sac that goes downhill is a bad idea, but most of us just see a bunch of water rushing down the street--dangerous to pedestrians but it's not going to do a thing to anybody's house.

 

[Bronzeage]

Hydrology is a subset of civil engineering and like all engineering, there is a balance between risk, precaution, and cost. Your proposal for disaster resistance would make a house in Wichita, Kansas very expensive it had to be able to stand up to a F3 tornado.

It would only make building a house expensive--I'm not saying anything needs to be retrofit. And it's not that expensive to build for a F3. Concrete domes will generally shrug off a F5. It won't look anything like a conventional house but it will work.

A natural environment can absorb a lot of water before it appears in the drainage system. Development such as roofs and roads means water runs more directly into the drainage and down stream. In my neighborhood, there are now laws restricting land use. If someone wants to put a shopping center in a cow pasture, an engineer has to determine what the current rate of water run is and the developer has to maintain this rate for whatever is built. It's common to see a small pond in the corner of a parking lot. The parking lot drains into the pond and water outflow is restricted. When it quits raining, the pond drains slowly, imitating the former cow pasture. This requirement has made many shopping center projects unviable because after the pond takes it's share of the land, there's not enough left for a profitable operation. In some places, there is a large vault under the parking lot, which collects the water. It's expensive, but you get more parking spaces. That's not practical if the water table is close to the surface because the vault would float up out of the ground when it was empty.

Around here water absorption into the ground in a heavy rain is limited, the water runs off. Woe to anyone in the path it runs off to, but in most of the city you just make sure there's plenty of place to run off to and that the houses are a bit above the streets. A cul-de-sac that goes downhill is a bad idea, but most of us just see a bunch of water rushing down the street--dangerous to pedestrians but it's not going to do a thing to anybody's house.

Concrete domes? I want to be sitting in the back at the city council meeting where this building code is introduced.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Hydrology is a subset of civil engineering and like all engineering, there is a balance between risk, precaution, and cost. Your proposal for disaster resistance would make a house in Wichita, Kansas very expensive it had to be able to stand up to a F3 tornado.

It would only make building a house expensive--I'm not saying anything needs to be retrofit. And it's not that expensive to build for a F3. Concrete domes will generally shrug off a F5. It won't look anything like a conventional house but it will work.

A natural environment can absorb a lot of water before it appears in the drainage system. Development such as roofs and roads means water runs more directly into the drainage and down stream. In my neighborhood, there are now laws restricting land use. If someone wants to put a shopping center in a cow pasture, an engineer has to determine what the current rate of water run is and the developer has to maintain this rate for whatever is built. It's common to see a small pond in the corner of a parking lot. The parking lot drains into the pond and water outflow is restricted. When it quits raining, the pond drains slowly, imitating the former cow pasture. This requirement has made many shopping center projects unviable because after the pond takes it's share of the land, there's not enough left for a profitable operation. In some places, there is a large vault under the parking lot, which collects the water. It's expensive, but you get more parking spaces. That's not practical if the water table is close to the surface because the vault would float up out of the ground when it was empty.

Around here water absorption into the ground in a heavy rain is limited, the water runs off. Woe to anyone in the path it runs off to, but in most of the city you just make sure there's plenty of place to run off to and that the houses are a bit above the streets. A cul-de-sac that goes downhill is a bad idea, but most of us just see a bunch of water rushing down the street--dangerous to pedestrians but it's not going to do a thing to anybody's house.

Concrete domes? I want to be sitting in the back at the city council meeting where this building code is introduced.

They're legal now.

 

[Bronzeage]

Hydrology is a subset of civil engineering and like all engineering, there is a balance between risk, precaution, and cost. Your proposal for disaster resistance would make a house in Wichita, Kansas very expensive it had to be able to stand up to a F3 tornado.

It would only make building a house expensive--I'm not saying anything needs to be retrofit. And it's not that expensive to build for a F3. Concrete domes will generally shrug off a F5. It won't look anything like a conventional house but it will work.

A natural environment can absorb a lot of water before it appears in the drainage system. Development such as roofs and roads means water runs more directly into the drainage and down stream. In my neighborhood, there are now laws restricting land use. If someone wants to put a shopping center in a cow pasture, an engineer has to determine what the current rate of water run is and the developer has to maintain this rate for whatever is built. It's common to see a small pond in the corner of a parking lot. The parking lot drains into the pond and water outflow is restricted. When it quits raining, the pond drains slowly, imitating the former cow pasture. This requirement has made many shopping center projects unviable because after the pond takes it's share of the land, there's not enough left for a profitable operation. In some places, there is a large vault under the parking lot, which collects the water. It's expensive, but you get more parking spaces. That's not practical if the water table is close to the surface because the vault would float up out of the ground when it was empty.

Around here water absorption into the ground in a heavy rain is limited, the water runs off. Woe to anyone in the path it runs off to, but in most of the city you just make sure there's plenty of place to run off to and that the houses are a bit above the streets. A cul-de-sac that goes downhill is a bad idea, but most of us just see a bunch of water rushing down the street--dangerous to pedestrians but it's not going to do a thing to anybody's house.

Concrete domes? I want to be sitting in the back at the city council meeting where this building code is introduced.

They're legal now.

There is a difference between being legal and being required by law. Consider how many houses in Wichita have never been destroyed by a tornado. If tornados are such an imminent threat that concrete dome houses would justify the expense, it would be better not to live there at all.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

Tornados to southeast US: "We're not in Kansas anymore."

Welcome to Climate Change!

Concrete domes in Kansas are also horrible structures for EQ and earth movement - which are much more likely perils in KS than tornados.

aa