Too Much Policing in Black Neighborhoods

[Loren Pechtel]

You ought to try your on advice sometime.

The relevant issue was a witness who talked to the cops getting murdered.

As usual, you are wrong. The relevant topic is the OP is too much policing in black neighborhoods.

The reference was the linked article.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Thanks for the map that shows racist redlining.

Carefully constructed pockets of poverty within a racist society generally do have higher crime rates.

Except the only racism is by the blacks themselves--choosing to live near other blacks.

 

[laughing dog]

You ought to try your on advice sometime.
As usual, you are wrong. The relevant topic is the OP is too much policing in black neighborhoods.

The reference was the linked article.

Do you know what OP you are posting in?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The reference was the linked article.

Do you know what OP you are posting in?

Yes, but apparently you have no idea of the concept of a discussion within a thread.

 

[laughing dog]

Do you know what OP you are posting in?

Yes, but apparently you have no idea of the concept of a discussion within a thread.

Unlike your comments, my comment was in reference and relevant to the actual OP You are free to ignore it. And you are free to insist that someone participate in one of your inane derails. And you free to derail your derail with inane demands that posters ignore the OP and participate in your inane derail of a derail. But no one is compelled to comply with your inane expectations.

 

[untermensche]

Thanks for the map that shows racist redlining.

Carefully constructed pockets of poverty within a racist society generally do have higher crime rates.

Except the only racism is by the blacks themselves--choosing to live near other blacks.

HUD & ASSOCIATED BANK REACH HISTORIC $200 MILLION SETTLEMENT OF 'REDLINING' CLAIM

HUD's Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity filed a disparate treatment fair housing complaint alleging that between 2008 and 2010, Associated Bank discriminated on the basis of race and national origin regarding the denial of mortgage loans to qualified African-American and Hispanic applicants and the provision of loan services in majority-minority census tracts. HUD's analysis of Associated Bank's mortgage lending activity indicated that, compared to other mortgage lenders, Associated made few loans in majority-minority census tracts in five metropolitan areas in Illinois, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, but did make loans in nearby predominantly white tracts.

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/press/press_releases_media_advisories/2015/HUDNo_15-064b

How is it you get everything wrong?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Except the only racism is by the blacks themselves--choosing to live near other blacks.

HUD & ASSOCIATED BANK REACH HISTORIC $200 MILLION SETTLEMENT OF 'REDLINING' CLAIM

HUD's Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity filed a disparate treatment fair housing complaint alleging that between 2008 and 2010, Associated Bank discriminated on the basis of race and national origin regarding the denial of mortgage loans to qualified African-American and Hispanic applicants and the provision of loan services in majority-minority census tracts. HUD's analysis of Associated Bank's mortgage lending activity indicated that, compared to other mortgage lenders, Associated made few loans in majority-minority census tracts in five metropolitan areas in Illinois, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, but did make loans in nearby predominantly white tracts.

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/press/press_releases_media_advisories/2015/HUDNo_15-064b

How is it you get everything wrong?

1) How would this keep blacks together? If it's easier to buy a house non-black areas that would tend to cause blacks to disperse, not concentrate!

2) I don't know about the areas in question but we had similar allegations some years earlier here--and a closer analysis shows it's just more of the fake discrimination that the watchdogs use to justify their jobs.

Locally:

1) For any given house the odds of approval for equally qualified borrowers was equal.

2) For 80/20 loans the location didn't matter.

3) For low-down loans there were two zip codes that were majority black where loans were less likely to be approved. They screamed redlining and IIRC handed down some penalties.

Lets look more carefully at this, though. Why would they only discriminate against low-down borrowers?? That doesn't make much sense. Lets see if we can find a more solid factor that explains what we are seeing.

Observation: The zip codes in question were not participating in the general rise in house prices. Understandably so, they were about the worst parts of town.

Observation: Bankers love to see homeowner equity, they hate to see houses without equity. So long as there is decent equity the chance of things going bad is quite low and if they do they'll generally be made whole. With a lack of equity they'll probably take a bath if things go bad.

Hypothesis: Bankers were looking at the expected appreciation. Lets look at the situation a few years down the road. A low-down loan in most areas will build up equity from appreciation. A low-down loan in those two zip codes will likely still have very little equity. An 80/20 has decent equity, however.

Note that this explains all the data by making a single and quite reasonable assumption. The Redlining! people never explained why banks would discriminate only against blacks that had low-down mortgages.

Occam's Razor: The government failed to look at all the relevant factors, there is no discrimination going on. (Somewhat understandable as expected appreciation is an educated guess, not something subject to exact measurement.)

 

[Jarhyn]

HUD & ASSOCIATED BANK REACH HISTORIC $200 MILLION SETTLEMENT OF 'REDLINING' CLAIM

HUD's Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity filed a disparate treatment fair housing complaint alleging that between 2008 and 2010, Associated Bank discriminated on the basis of race and national origin regarding the denial of mortgage loans to qualified African-American and Hispanic applicants and the provision of loan services in majority-minority census tracts. HUD's analysis of Associated Bank's mortgage lending activity indicated that, compared to other mortgage lenders, Associated made few loans in majority-minority census tracts in five metropolitan areas in Illinois, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, but did make loans in nearby predominantly white tracts.

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/press/press_releases_media_advisories/2015/HUDNo_15-064b

How is it you get everything wrong?

1) How would this keep blacks together? If it's easier to buy a house non-black areas that would tend to cause blacks to disperse, not concentrate!

2) I don't know about the areas in question but we had similar allegations some years earlier here--and a closer analysis shows it's just more of the fake discrimination that the watchdogs use to justify their jobs.

Locally:

1) For any given house the odds of approval for equally qualified borrowers was equal.

2) For 80/20 loans the location didn't matter.

3) For low-down loans there were two zip codes that were majority black where loans were less likely to be approved. They screamed redlining and IIRC handed down some penalties.

Lets look more carefully at this, though. Why would they only discriminate against low-down borrowers?? That doesn't make much sense. Lets see if we can find a more solid factor that explains what we are seeing.

Observation: The zip codes in question were not participating in the general rise in house prices. Understandably so, they were about the worst parts of town.

Observation: Bankers love to see homeowner equity, they hate to see houses without equity. So long as there is decent equity the chance of things going bad is quite low and if they do they'll generally be made whole. With a lack of equity they'll probably take a bath if things go bad.

Hypothesis: Bankers were looking at the expected appreciation. Lets look at the situation a few years down the road. A low-down loan in most areas will build up equity from appreciation. A low-down loan in those two zip codes will likely still have very little equity. An 80/20 has decent equity, however.

Note that this explains all the data by making a single and quite reasonable assumption. The Redlining! people never explained why banks would discriminate only against blacks that had low-down mortgages.

Occam's Razor: The government failed to look at all the relevant factors, there is no discrimination going on. (Somewhat understandable as expected appreciation is an educated guess, not something subject to exact measurement.)

You really don't understand how redlining works, do you? By denying home loans to qualified African Americans in 'bad' parts of town, this causes those properties to either sit vacant or to be purchased by absentee landlords. This keeps the area slum-like, and continues extracting rent levels of expenses from the neighborhood. Without equity, the African American majority living there can't get a down payment or equity to move elsewhere where a higher down would be necessary. By denying loans in cheap parts of town, those parts of town remain slums.

 

[coloradoatheist]

You really don't understand how redlining works, do you? By denying home loans to qualified African Americans in 'bad' parts of town, this causes those properties to either sit vacant or to be purchased by absentee landlords. This keeps the area slum-like, and continues extracting rent levels of expenses from the neighborhood. Without equity, the African American majority living there can't get a down payment or equity to move elsewhere where a higher down would be necessary. By denying loans in cheap parts of town, those parts of town remain slums.

So we have two scenerios.

1) The banks are turning down making money. And I thought banks were greedy bastards

2) Banks have to loan money to people who won't repay the loans

 

[untermensche]

You really don't understand how redlining works, do you? By denying home loans to qualified African Americans in 'bad' parts of town, this causes those properties to either sit vacant or to be purchased by absentee landlords. This keeps the area slum-like, and continues extracting rent levels of expenses from the neighborhood. Without equity, the African American majority living there can't get a down payment or equity to move elsewhere where a higher down would be necessary. By denying loans in cheap parts of town, those parts of town remain slums.

So we have two scenerios.

1) The banks are turning down making money. And I thought banks were greedy bastards

2) Banks have to loan money to people who won't repay the loans

Saying you thought "banks were greedy bastards" is not any kind of a refutation. Not any kind of an argument.

Especially since banks do nothing, only people do.

And we can see what they did.

 

[coloradoatheist]

So we have two scenerios.

1) The banks are turning down making money. And I thought banks were greedy bastards

2) Banks have to loan money to people who won't repay the loans

Saying you thought "banks were greedy bastards" is not any kind of a refutation. Not any kind of an argument.

Especially since banks do nothing, only people do.

And we can see what they did.

Yes, it was caused by loaning money people too aggressively thinking they could make their money back.

 

[untermensche]

Saying you thought "banks were greedy bastards" is not any kind of a refutation. Not any kind of an argument.

Especially since banks do nothing, only people do.

And we can see what they did.

Yes, it was caused by loaning money people too aggressively thinking they could make their money back.

What?

That has nothing to do with the redlining practices of banks and real estate agents that have gone on for decades.

And banks never lent anything "too aggressively".

They did lend without caring because they knew they could pass the bad loan to some sucker hidden in huge bundles.

 

[Trausti]

HUD & ASSOCIATED BANK REACH HISTORIC $200 MILLION SETTLEMENT OF 'REDLINING' CLAIM

HUD's Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity filed a disparate treatment fair housing complaint alleging that between 2008 and 2010, Associated Bank discriminated on the basis of race and national origin regarding the denial of mortgage loans to qualified African-American and Hispanic applicants and the provision of loan services in majority-minority census tracts. HUD's analysis of Associated Bank's mortgage lending activity indicated that, compared to other mortgage lenders, Associated made few loans in majority-minority census tracts in five metropolitan areas in Illinois, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, but did make loans in nearby predominantly white tracts.

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/press/press_releases_media_advisories/2015/HUDNo_15-064b

How is it you get everything wrong?

1) How would this keep blacks together? If it's easier to buy a house non-black areas that would tend to cause blacks to disperse, not concentrate!

2) I don't know about the areas in question but we had similar allegations some years earlier here--and a closer analysis shows it's just more of the fake discrimination that the watchdogs use to justify their jobs.

Locally:

1) For any given house the odds of approval for equally qualified borrowers was equal.

2) For 80/20 loans the location didn't matter.

3) For low-down loans there were two zip codes that were majority black where loans were less likely to be approved. They screamed redlining and IIRC handed down some penalties.

Lets look more carefully at this, though. Why would they only discriminate against low-down borrowers?? That doesn't make much sense. Lets see if we can find a more solid factor that explains what we are seeing.

Observation: The zip codes in question were not participating in the general rise in house prices. Understandably so, they were about the worst parts of town.

Observation: Bankers love to see homeowner equity, they hate to see houses without equity. So long as there is decent equity the chance of things going bad is quite low and if they do they'll generally be made whole. With a lack of equity they'll probably take a bath if things go bad.

Hypothesis: Bankers were looking at the expected appreciation. Lets look at the situation a few years down the road. A low-down loan in most areas will build up equity from appreciation. A low-down loan in those two zip codes will likely still have very little equity. An 80/20 has decent equity, however.

Note that this explains all the data by making a single and quite reasonable assumption. The Redlining! people never explained why banks would discriminate only against blacks that had low-down mortgages.

Occam's Razor: The government failed to look at all the relevant factors, there is no discrimination going on. (Somewhat understandable as expected appreciation is an educated guess, not something subject to exact measurement.)

You really don't understand how redlining works, do you? By denying home loans to qualified African Americans in 'bad' parts of town, this causes those properties to either sit vacant or to be purchased by absentee landlords. This keeps the area slum-like, and continues extracting rent levels of expenses from the neighborhood. Without equity, the African American majority living there can't get a down payment or equity to move elsewhere where a higher down would be necessary. By denying loans in cheap parts of town, those parts of town remain slums.

But that's not what happened with Associated Bank. HUD asserted a disparate impact claim because it had no actual evidence of unlawful discrimination. Even a third party hired to review its lending practices did not find any violations. Instead, Associated Bank was essentially punished for practicing sound finance rules, i.e., lending to potential mortgagees based on default risk.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Yes, it was caused by loaning money people too aggressively thinking they could make their money back.

What?

That has nothing to do with the redlining practices of banks and real estate agents that have gone on for decades.

And banks never lent anything "too aggressively".

They did lend without caring because they knew they could pass the bad loan to some sucker hidden in huge bundles.

Yes it was about how aggressively they could loan money. Banks were traditionally conservative, required 20% down. But the government didn't think they were being aggressive enough so they put in government programs to help. And then it was noticed that they were redlining because banks wouldn't make money in this investments, but it was a problem. Then it was they weren't loaning to minorities enough and they found a solution.

 

[untermensche]

What?

That has nothing to do with the redlining practices of banks and real estate agents that have gone on for decades.

And banks never lent anything "too aggressively".

They did lend without caring because they knew they could pass the bad loan to some sucker hidden in huge bundles.

Yes it was about how aggressively they could loan money. Banks were traditionally conservative, required 20% down. But the government didn't think they were being aggressive enough so they put in government programs to help. And then it was noticed that they were redlining because banks wouldn't make money in this investments, but it was a problem. Then it was they weren't loaning to minorities enough and they found a solution.

This is so twisted and far from reality I don't know if I can help.

For decades banks practiced racist policies and would not loan to many blacks.

The Congress asked them to seek out qualified borrowers that were minorities.

Nobody asked them or instructed them to just loan to anybody that asked without checking their credit.

That was entirely the idea of bankers. Because they had a scheme to defraud others with bad loans hidden in huge bundles.

The ratings agencies were in on the scheme as well.

 

[Trausti]

What?

That has nothing to do with the redlining practices of banks and real estate agents that have gone on for decades.

And banks never lent anything "too aggressively".

They did lend without caring because they knew they could pass the bad loan to some sucker hidden in huge bundles.

Yes it was about how aggressively they could loan money. Banks were traditionally conservative, required 20% down. But the government didn't think they were being aggressive enough so they put in government programs to help. And then it was noticed that they were redlining because banks wouldn't make money in this investments, but it was a problem. Then it was they weren't loaning to minorities enough and they found a solution.

Yeah. Government policy pushed lenders to make loans that they would not have otherwise made. The lenders didn't create the default risk disparity.

http://www.responsiblelending.org/mortgage-lending/research-analysis/foreclosures-by-race-and-ethnicity.pdf

 

[untermensche]

Yeah. Government policy pushed lenders to make loans that they would not have otherwise made. The lenders didn't create the default risk disparity.

Yes the banks had racist policies and they would not have made many loans to minorities.

But nobody told them to loan without checking credit and hiding these bad loans in huge bundles and selling them to others.

That was entirely the idea of criminal bankers.

Very few of which were ever prosecuted.

It's good to be the master.

 

[Trausti]

Yeah. Government policy pushed lenders to make loans that they would not have otherwise made. The lenders didn't create the default risk disparity.

Yes the banks had racist policies and they would not have made many loans to minorities.

But nobody told them to loan without checking credit and hiding these bad loans in huge bundles and selling them to others.

That was entirely the idea of criminal bankers.

Very few of which were ever prosecuted.

It's good to be the master.

Now it's racist for a mortgagor to lend based on a potential mortgagee's default risk? Really, everything is racist now. Everything. Common sense out the window.

 

[untermensche]

Yes the banks had racist policies and they would not have made many loans to minorities.

But nobody told them to loan without checking credit and hiding these bad loans in huge bundles and selling them to others.

That was entirely the idea of criminal bankers.

Very few of which were ever prosecuted.

It's good to be the master.

Now it's racist for a mortgagor to lend based on a potential mortgagee's default risk? Really, everything is racist now. Everything. Common sense out the window.

What is racist is looking at two people with the same finances and concluding the darker one is a bigger risk.

What is racist is reaching out and looking for potential borrowers only in predominantly white areas.

Which is what the banks had been doing for decades.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Now it's racist for a mortgagor to lend based on a potential mortgagee's default risk? Really, everything is racist now. Everything. Common sense out the window.

What is racist is looking at two people with the same finances and concluding the darker one is a bigger risk.

What is racist is reaching out and looking for potential borrowers only in predominantly white areas.

Which is what the banks had been doing for decades.

so again these banks weren't going somewhere that they could make money? So they aren't greedy?