SF's foreclosure crisis

Banks bill the city for $115 million to foreclose on its residents

|
(2)

EDITORIAL Here's a great issue for the San Francisco mayor's race: The big banks that the city uses to hold nearly half a billion in cash deposits are part of a group of financial institutions that are costing the taxpayers $115 million.

That's the amount the city will wind up paying to cover the lost property taxes and other costs associated with home foreclosures, according to a new report. And the authors of the report, the Community Reinvestment Coalition and the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment, estimate that San Francisco homeowners are going to lose a total of $6.9 billion in value because of the foreclosure crisis.

Most of the discussion around foreclosures has focused on the national picture — but there's plenty the city can do.

The numbers are alarming: 16,355 San Francisco homeowners are underwater on their mortgages, meaning they owe more than the house is currently worth. By 2012, the report estimates, 12,410 local homes will be in foreclosure.

That means 12,400 families facing displacement — which adds to the homeless crisis, puts more pressure on the rental housing market and most likely will force many people who work in the city to find housing a long commute away.

Foreclosures also drive down the value of neighboring property — which means the city collects less property tax. The cost of sending deputy sheriffs out to evict families, of patrolling and monitoring vacant houses, dealing with increased crime in the area — all of that adds up. According to the report, every foreclosure costs the city $19,229. Add up the loss of property taxes and the direct costs to taxpayers and the bill exceeds $115 million.

Two of the top four banks involved in foreclosures in California are Wells Fargo and Bank of America. Those just happen to be two of the three banks that have to contract to handle the city's cash accounts — which contain $406 million, according to an Aug. 16, 2011 report by Budget Analyst Harvey Rose. So the city is giving its money to banks that are costing the city money.

The banks aren't paupers, either — and have accepted huge amounts of federal tax money. B of A and Wells together received $270 billion in bailout money — and both are now making nice profits (enough that the CEO of Wells, John Stumpf, earned $17 million last year). They can afford to write down the underwater mortgages and arrange for foreclosure relief for people behind on the bills.

The report suggests that the banks be charged a fee — between $10,000 and $20,000 — for each foreclosure. That would offset the costs and provide a disincentive for throwing families out on the street. The candidates for mayor ought to be pushing that — but the city can do more.

The supervisors ought to call a hearing on the crisis and demand that the B of A and Wells executives come down and explain why they're moving so slowly on write-downs and relief. And they should be told, in very clear terms, that the city will no longer put a penny of its money in banks that are damaging, instead of investing in, San Francisco.

Comments

Don't comments or responses to 'editorials' get posted anymore?

Posted by Pat Monk.RN. on Sep. 20, 2011 @ 9:52 pm

Your reporter Oona Robertson touched on a related problem in her recent piece cited above. The State now deposits all Unemployment payments into BofA. BofA has issued Debit Cards to all recipients. You then have to arrange to have BofA transfer funds into the Bank of your choice. You can not have your money deposited directly into your own Bank. In the interim BofA is getting interest on the money they are holding and, as one of the prime culprits in the economic debacle, further profiting from their corrupt practices.
We are at the mercy of these crooks, but if enough people transfered their business transactions into a local Credit Union, or similar institution, we might be able to 'take a small bite out of crime'. Most of these alternative institutions tend to reinvest locally so we would also be supporting the community.
I believe I read somewhere recently that the idea of a State Bank of California was being revisited? Worth looking into. How about a San Francisco City Bank. Billions of dollars are deposited into the vaults of "Wall Street" every day. Why shouldn't we get the return on investment?
Just my 2c.
Pat Monk.RN. Noe Valley. SF.

Posted by Pat Monk.RN. on Sep. 21, 2011 @ 1:08 pm

Also from this author

  • Guardian endorsements

    Campos for Assembly, Yes on Props. B and 42, re-elect Gov. Jerry Brown — our recommendations for the June 2014 primary election

  • The future of Piers 30-32

  • Hold BART accountable for deaths