KUOW Misses the Mark on Foreclosures

KUOW ran a story a couple days ago that I would like to address here: Thousands Of Foreclosures Sit Off Market In Seattle Area

The Seattle-area housing market could use an injection of inventory. It’s on a tear right now, fueled by high demand and low supply, and hooked on low-interest rates.

And there is a potential supply of lower-priced homes in the region. Those are the 4,300 foreclosed homes from Everett to Tacoma that are now owned by banks, according to RealtyTrac.

More than 4,000 houses added to the market would be a rush – that would be two-thirds of what the region sells in a single month.

But these houses are just sitting around.

There are a few big problems with this piece.

Problem 1: RealtyTrac data is misleading

KUOW’s report is based on data from RealtyTrac, and RealtyTrac overcounts foreclosures. When most people think of a “foreclosed home” they are usually talking about a home that has actually been repossessed by the bank and sits empty (i.e. a bank owned home). When RealtyTrac gives data on foreclosure counts, they’re giving a total number of homes that are in “some stage of foreclosure (default, auction or bank owned).”

Here in Washington State, there is no public notice of default, so RealtyTrac’s numbers only count “auction” (i.e. homes that are scheduled for a bank auction according to the publicly-filed Notice of Trustee Sale) and “bank owned” (i.e. homes that have actually been repossessed by the bank via a Trustee Deed). If you look at the Washington State foreclosure timeline, you’ll see that any given home progressing at the fastest possible rate through the foreclosure process is going to sit in one of those two states between day 90 and day 281. Therefore, RealtyTrac’s data is a snapshot of 191 days—over six months—of the foreclosure pipeline.

Foreclosure-Timeline-in-Washington-State-v1.1

Any snapshot of the foreclosure pipeline at a given time that includes both homes that have received a notice of trustee sale and those that have actually been foreclosed will include the last four months’ worth of homes that received a notice of trustee sale and the last two months worth of trustee deeds. Running those numbers for King / Snohomish / Pierce gives us 3,087 notices of trustee sale March through June and 698 trustee deeds1 in May and June, for a total of 3,785 homes progressing normally through the foreclosure pipeline as of the end of June. Again, this number assumes every home is moving as quickly as possible through the pipeline, which we know is not true since there are many ways to delay and extend the foreclosure timeline.

In other words, 4,300 sounds about right for the number of homes progressing normally through the foreclosure pipeline right now. These homes are not “just sitting around,” as claimed by KUOW. In fact, more than 3,000 of them are not yet even bank owned, meaning they are likely still occupied by the delinquent borrowers.

Problem 2: 4,300 homes is a drop in the bucket

According to NWMLS data, there were 6,472 closed sales (SFH+condo) in King / Snohomish / Pierce in the month of June. At the end of the month there were 9,710 homes on the market. That gives us a mere 1.5 months of supply for the three-county metro area.

Even if we assume that the 4,300 homes cited by RealtyTrac are “just sitting around” (which they are not) and were able to be immediately added to the market, increasing inventory from 9,710 to 14,010 would result in an increase of just 0.7 months of supply. Granted, 2.2 months of supply is definitely better than 1.5, but keep in mind that six months of supply is considered a “balanced market” that favors neither buyers nor sellers. 2.2 months of supply is still deep in sellers’ market territory.

In order to bring the Seattle-area housing market back into balance at the current level of demand, an additional twenty-nine thousand homes would need to be listed for sale—nearly seven times the claimed 4,300 homes that are “just sitting around” (but aren’t really).

A Better Headline

Frankly, 4,300 homes in some stage of foreclosure in the Seattle metro area is not news. If KUOW really wanted to run a piece about it though, the headline should have been “Thousands Of Homes Progressing Normally Through The Foreclosure Process In Seattle Area”

Are there a few homes here and there sitting empty for longer than the typical foreclosure process for one reason or another? Sure. Is it “thousands of homes”? Nope, no way, not true, just no.

Update: See the response from RealtyTrac VP Daren Blomquist at comment #9 below, and my response to him at comment #20.

1I had to make a calculated guess at Snohomish deeds of trust since they lump all deeds together in their online records search

0.00 avg. rating (0% score) - 0 votes

About The Tim

Tim Ellis is the founder of Seattle Bubble. His background in engineering and computer / internet technology, a fondness of data-based analysis of problems, and an addiction to spreadsheets all influence his perspective on the Seattle-area real estate market. Tim also hosts the weekly improv comedy sci-fi podcast Dispatches from the Multiverse.

37 comments:

  1. 1
    redmondjp says:

    Right on the mark, Tim. It’s the “shadow inventory” boogeyman theory again (and those darn, evil banks, grrr).

    Every foreclosure that I am personally familiar with either was or is occupied, with the occupants paying to keep the lights on (and likely the banks keeping the property taxes current). And if it is a rental, the landlord will still collect rent from the tenants.

    And based upon the number of Berkshire-Hathaway real estate signs I have seen pop up on the Eastside over the past year, I’d say that the banks are working through their foreclosure inventory.

    Now maybe in places like Detroit, things are different. I know there are a lot of empty homes there.

  2. 2
    Chutney Riggins says:

    RE: redmondjp @ 1 – Is there anything specifically about Berkshire-Hathaway that suggests more foreclosures are being sold?

  3. 3
    redmondjp says:

    By Chutney Riggins @ 2:

    RE: redmondjp @ 1 – Is there anything specifically about Berkshire-Hathaway that suggests more foreclosures are being sold?

    After doing some more research, perhaps not, since it seems that it is nothing more than another RE franchise.

    My initial supposition was that they were formed in part to clear out the foreclosure inventory accumulated amongst his other real estate investments, and after further reading this does not appear to be the case. So scratch that . . .

  4. 4

    RE: redmondjp @ 3 – B/H used to be Prudential. Just a re-branding.

  5. 5

    An additional problem with the analysis is that probably well over half of those 4,300 homes are less than desirable. Near a freeway, run down, etc.

  6. 6
    ESS says:

    What? Another media story that is either misleading or has its facts wrong? Say it ain’t so, Joe!

  7. 7
    Mike says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 5:

    An additional problem with the analysis is that probably well over half of those 4,300 homes are less than desirable. Near a freeway, run down, etc.

    Or in Renton.

  8. 8
    redmondjp says:

    By Mike @ 7:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 5:

    An additional problem with the analysis is that probably well over half of those 4,300 homes are less than desirable. Near a freeway, run down, etc.

    Or in Renton.

    Which is ahead of the curve. So maybe Renton has already flushed out their inventory of foreclosures.

  9. 9

    This is Daren Blomquist, VP at RealtyTrac. I very much appreciate the obviously well-researched information that you provide on your blog in general, but I wanted to jump in and respond to some of the assertions here and hopefully provide some clarity on the RealtyTrac data.

    First you say that RealtyTrac over counts foreclosures. While our count of “foreclosure activity” does include multiple actions in the foreclosure process, I would dispute that this is over counting. It is providing a count of foreclosure actions taking place, and we do separate out the actions so if folks want to just look at foreclosure starts (NTS in Washington) they can do that, and if they just want to look at foreclosure completions (REO) they can do that. Our report only counts each action once within the average time frame it takes to foreclose in each state, so if we collect an NTS in January and there is another NTS in February on the same property we do not count that again.

    But that is really not the main issue I want to clarify. In the article you somehow make an incorrect assumption that the “4,300 foreclosed homes” mentioned in the article and based on RealtyTrac data includes properties in the NTS stage of foreclosure. That is not correct. The 4,300 is only properties that are in REO, i.e. “foreclosed”. And actually that number has grown since we provided the data thanks to a surge in REO activity recently. We now show more than 4,700 in the Seattle metro area (King, Pierce and Snohomish counties combined).

    In terms of the timeline, your nice timeline graphic showing the optimal timelines for foreclosure — when compared to the timelines in reality based on RealtyTrac data — demonstrate that there is much more of a story here than just “Thousands of Homes Progressing Normally Through The Foreclosure Process in Seattle Area.”

    RealtyTrac data shows that for properties that completed foreclosure in the first quarter of this year in Washington (we run the data by state, not metro), the average time it took from the initial NTS filing was 482 days. In the optimal timeline you display, the number of days from NTS to REO is 120 days. So properties are being foreclosed this year that have taken more than four times the optimal timeline, holding back inventory from the market that otherwise could have at least helped with the low supply (although at the end of the day I would agree that it looks like even if all 4,700 REOs hit the market today it would not solve the low supply relative to demand in the Seattle area).

    Furthermore, RealtyTrac data shows that Washington state REOs that sold in the first quarter had become REOs an average of 221 days earlier, much longer than the 60 days in your optimal timeline (if I’m reading that correctly). So not only are banks taking much longer than the optimal timeline to move a delinquent property to foreclosure, they are taking much longer than the optimal timeline to sell a foreclosed home once they have completed the foreclosure process. Certainly this is relevant information in a market starved for inventory, even if the numbers are not overwhelming.

  10. 10
    boater says:

    Forget forclosures. Look at what the HALA draft document suggests. Substantially increasing the number of upzoned areas, removing SFH as a zone and changing it to a residential density instead. I haven’t completely read it but man they certainly seem to understand the need to increase supply to solve the problem.

    https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2159036-hala-recommendations-draft-8-1.html

  11. 11
    Blurtman says:

    Disgusting flipper greed.

    03/24/15 Sold: Foreclosure Auction $705,000

    Now for sale at $875,000, as has been reported to me. Outside was painted. Guess that is worth $100k.

  12. 12
    Erik says:

    RE: Daren Blomquist @ 9
    Daren, please make your site easy enough to use so even those boneheads over at KUOW can figure it out. You need to breakdown “foreclosed homes” into categories because it is misleading that you are calling a home in process of foreclosure a “foreclosed home”. The word “foreclosed” is past tense. You are using the word “foreclosed” as present tense plus past tense and that is causing confusion. Tim is right.

  13. 13
  14. 14

    Giant Seattle Homes

    Giant property taxes and utilities. Useless spending on unused space [with small lots and yards]. We either buy the giant new homes they’re building or settle for a dinky money pit $700K Magnolia (i.e.) Museum Piece(s).

    How can anyone preach environment and recycling [LOL] when singles and couples own these new monsters [and live in them all by themselves]? Also, I’ve read the listed stock is largely wore out or inadequately staged with incomplete fixes since the last foreclosure batches…..causing many buyers to buy giant new units because the used deals stunk.

  15. 15

    RE: Blurtman @ 11

    Property Tax Revenge On Slow Selling Flippers

    That $875K unit has a property tax of about $700/mo. Insurance is about $500/mo. Utilities in the winter without central air range about $700/mo too. Add the central air for about a $15,000 upgrade and the electric bill in the summer can be over $500/mo too….

    This is before the $3500-4000/mo mortgage payment…

    Money down the drain.

  16. 16

    RE: softwarengineer @ 15

    Did Anyone Mention HOA Fees?

    Cheaper Renton condos are like $600/mo HOA fees….again, on top of the monthly mortgage payment.

  17. 17

    RE: softwarengineer @ 16 – I’m sure there are some where it is that high, but that would not be typical for a cheaper condo anywhere. But that does affect value, so increasing the dues to that amount would decrease the price significantly, more so as a percentage on a lower value condo.

    We’ve started ordering a condo resale cert as soon as we take a listing because that way we don’t get surprised by some issue the seller doesn’t know about (or doesn’t tell us about). If a buyer pops up soon enough that also starts their review period sooner and also saves the seller the cost of the resale cert since we end up paying for it.

  18. 18

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 17

    Also Kary

    My hair dresser’s Renton Condo may have a specially high HOA fee, but I blame the HOA boards. They’re made up of retired folks with no clue on budgets or Washington State laws. Hades, the fired idiots of my HOA board illegally suggested liens on all the units for maintenance expenses…their “high-paid” attorney and consultant were brainwashing them.

  19. 19

    RE: softwarengineer @ 18 – It’s very possible it’s incompetence, but also possible it’s a lot of deferred maintenance or the impact of a lot of owners bailing from the condo unit.

    I came across a condo last year which had wood siding in obvious need of painting and some seemingly minor repair. Nothing unusual or extreme at all. The condo board was contemplating re-siding the entire complex and funding that through borrowing and huge dues hikes. I won’t say that work wasn’t necessary, because I don’t know all the facts (and didn’t walk around all sides of every building), but I would find it rather surprising. Keep in mind in some instances the management company gets paid more money for overseeing projects like that, so they might have a conflict of interest in advising the board on the need for repairs or the type of repairs necessary.

  20. 20
    The Tim says:

    By Daren Blomquist @ 9:

    First you say that RealtyTrac over counts foreclosures. While our count of “foreclosure activity” does include multiple actions in the foreclosure process, I would dispute that this is over counting. It is providing a count of foreclosure actions taking place, and we do separate out the actions so if folks want to just look at foreclosure starts (NTS in Washington) they can do that, and if they just want to look at foreclosure completions (REO) they can do that.

    In the article you somehow make an incorrect assumption that the “4,300 foreclosed homes” mentioned in the article and based on RealtyTrac data includes properties in the NTS stage of foreclosure. That is not correct.

    In most of the press you guys put out and the coverage you get, the generic term “foreclosures” is used to apply to the total count you publish, which as you say is any home in “some stage of foreclosure (default, auction or bank owned).” The KUOW piece used the term “foreclosed homes,” and in your press releases (example) you use terms like “foreclosure numbers” and “foreclosure activity” to refer to the total count including all the stages of the process.

    The language used in your releases is misleading, which leads to confusion among reporters citing your data and readers of articles that cite your data. If you didn’t want confusion, you should only use the word “foreclosure” to refer to homes that have actually been repossessed by the bank. That is what most people think of when they read that word, but that’s not how you use the word in your releases.

    The 4,300 is only properties that are in REO, i.e. “foreclosed”.

    Furthermore, RealtyTrac data shows that Washington state REOs that sold in the first quarter had become REOs an average of 221 days earlier, much longer than the 60 days in your optimal timeline (if I’m reading that correctly). So not only are banks taking much longer than the optimal timeline to move a delinquent property to foreclosure, they are taking much longer than the optimal timeline to sell a foreclosed home once they have completed the foreclosure process.

    As I said in my post, the data I was working with “assumes every home is moving as quickly as possible through the pipeline, which we know is not true since there are many ways to delay and extend the foreclosure timeline.”

    So, if we go with your 221 days number, that’s 7-8 months of repossessed homes in a given snapshot. 221 days is slow, but again I don’t think it’s fair to characterize these homes as “just sitting around.” They are still actively moving through the foreclosure process, just more slowly than the quickest possible timeline, which is not surprising at all.

    If we add up 8 months (November through June) of Trustee Deeds in King / Snohomish / Pierce, we get… 4,355 homes.

    So again, the story here is not 4,300 homes are “just sitting around,” it’s “foreclosure process is slow, takes 8 months for banks to sell homes.” That’s not really news, and definitely doesn’t represent the banks somehow intentionally withholding homes from the market.

  21. 21

    RE: The Tim @ 20RE: Daren Blomquist @ 9 – Apparently you two are making people here think too hard.

    Either that or Tim added another plug-in that broke SB. This post is a test of that. ;-)

  22. 22
    whatsmyname says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 21 – I don’t blame Blomquist for defending his company’s numbers. I don’t blame Tim for misinterpreting – as the use of the term “foreclosures” has been overly broad for years. Plus Tim is right on the scope. The numbers aren’t that big in the first place. Further, the article starts with a quote regarding houses in foreclosure for five or six years. Sounds like that complaint is more aligned Tim’s perception on what numbers we are talking about.

    I had focussed mostly on other issues in the original article.

    1. No one is really looking to significantly solve Seattle housing with properties in Orting or Eatonville. One early quote says they are running of out houses in the right neighborhoods right now. So how does this really impact the Seattle housing “crisis”?

    2. They complain that the houses are being bought by real estate professionals, too fast and for too much money. A guy from Habitat wants the banks to come to the table about this “problem”. So the hold up is not long enough? And too many people have a chance to get at the houses?

    3. Lets assume, in spite of the article’s evidence, that the banks are holding properties for extended periods. With loans going out at 4%, and local houses appreciating up to 10%, what really is the best asset to hold? We want to complain that the banks are incompetent lenders. Yet this article thinks they should become competent in house repair, although incompetent in asset management?

  23. 23

    RE: whatsmyname @ 22 – I wasn’t blaming anyone for anything. Only pointing out no one had commented in any SB thread (not just this thread) for 20 hours. I think it was just a week ago Tim added a plug-in and that prevented anyone posting. So my post was also a test post.

    I agree with most of what you posted, particularly the comments about bank competence. Also, yes the term foreclosure is often used in a very ambiguous matter.

  24. 24
    whatsmyname says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 23 – I got what you were saying, and I did’t think you were blaming anybody. I just thought my comments were best in context of your lighthearted remark about people thinking too hard. Sorry for the confusion.

  25. 25
    Wanttobuybutnotattgatprice says:

    Why would banks that own a houses not want to sell at a time when the houses are the most expensive they have ever been? Also they will make more on them because they bought them so low from the person they forclosed on. It really doesn’t make any scence and that’s why I suspect banks of being up to something. If it was really about recovering there money then why sit on it? Probably because banks arnt stupid and want to slowly release the properties so they can make lots of money. That’s not paranoid it’s math and business. How lucky for them that they lent some sucker money they didn’t even have in existence till they wrote the loan. ( fractional deposit loans) Then made interest on it till they were foreclosed. Repossessed the house for pennies in the dollar turning there fake money into a tangible good. Then wait for the market to recover and make 100k+ so they can deposit that and fractionally loan out more fake money and do it again. So yeah banks grrr.

  26. 26
    whatsmyname says:

    By Wanttobuybutnotattgatprice @ 25:

    Why would banks that own a houses not want to sell at a time when the houses are the most expensive they have ever been?

    You answered your question about why they would want to below, “Probably because banks arnt stupid and want to slowly release the properties so they can make lots of money. That’s not paranoid it’s math and business. ”

    they will make more on them because they bought them so low from the person they forclosed on. It really doesn’t make any scence

    That doesn’t make sense? Well, it would if it were true. They didn’t buy them low. Otherwise, they could have recovered from a buyer at the sheriff’s auction.

    lucky for them that they lent some sucker money they didn’t even have in existence till they wrote the loan. ( fractional deposit loans) Then made interest on it till they were foreclosed. Repossessed the house for pennies in the dollar turning there fake money into a tangible good.

    You need to look up fractional reserves. The banks don’t create money for themselves. They can only lend out what they take in – less than that because fractional reserves is about the % of deposits that they have to keep on hand as cash.

    wait for the market to recover and make 100k+ so they can deposit that and fractionally loan out more fake money and do it again. So yeah banks grrr.

    The big banks are doing so good that BAC shares are worth about a third of what they were in 2006 – and not because of splits.

  27. 27
    Blurtman says:

    By whatsmyname @ 26:

    By Wanttobuybutnotattgatprice @ 25:

    You need to look up fractional reserves. The banks don’t create money for themselves. They can only lend out what they take in – less than that because fractional reserves is about the % of deposits that they have to keep on hand as cash.
    – Circular gibberish. BAC loans Jeb $500,000 to buy a home. He gives the piece of paper to Carly, who deposits the piece of paper at Wells Farto, which then enters the $500,000 into an account as $500,000, in spite of the fact that BAC has only $50,000 on hand to back the piece of paper . Wells keeps $50,000 of the mythical $500,000, and writes a piece of paper for $450,000 to Hillary, who then hands it to Rand who deposits it at JPM Chase, which then enters $450,000 into an account even though only $45,000 is backing it, etc. This is simply money creation by a cartel, which pays bankers salaries and bonuses.

  28. 28
    Wanttobuybutnotattgatprice says:

    Exactly and if I just received a huge bail out less than 10 years ago I would probably limp around a little so that people didn’t catch on. ” oh poor us just barely making it” meanwhile they are stacking there chips under the table. RE: Blurtman @ 27

  29. 29
    Blurtman says:

    RE: Wanttobuybutnotattgatprice @ 28 – Hillary will crack down on Wall Street fraud, oh yes, you betcha!

  30. 30
    whatsmyname says:

    By Blurtman @ 27:

    Just because you don’t understand something doesn’t mean it is gibberish. But I certainly don’t understand what you are saying.

    BAC loans Jeb $500,000 to buy a home.

    Oops, you forgot that before that happened, BAC borrowed $550,000 from depositors or the central bank.

    He gives the piece of paper to Carly, who deposits the piece of paper at Wells Farto, which then enters the $500,000 into an account as $500,000,

    What piece of paper is that? You can’t deposit a promissory note or deed of trust into a bank account. Is Carly the seller? Do you mean payment of the $500,000 that was real money when someone else put it into BAC?

    in spite of the fact that BAC has only $50,000 on hand to back the piece of paper .

    For the depositors/central bank, BAC would have $50,000 cash plus a $500,000 note which is backed by Jeb’s $625,000 piece of real estate (20% down) plus their capital to back their $550,000 deposits. For the person receiving the $500,000 payment, that is $500,000 of the $550,000 that was real money when the depositors put it in. Does real money just disappear in the bank, only to be unfairly counted when it emerges again?

    keeps $50,000 of the mythical $500,000, and writes a piece of paper for $450,000 to Hillary, who then hands it to Rand who deposits it at JPM Chase, which then enters $450,000 into an account even though only $45,000 is backing it, etc. This is simply money creation by a cartel, which pays bankers salaries and bonuses.

    So if Blurtman goes into the store with $150, and spends $100 on Austrian weed, should the storekeep worry that Blurt only has $50 to back that $100 he spent? If Blurtman has a mortgage is there nothing to back up that $100? And when the storekeep spends $90 of it, do things just get worse? Now there’s a cartel for you. Or perhaps gibberish.

  31. 31
    Wanttobuybutnotatthatprice says:

    The quickest answer is it’s all fake money. Where does money come from? The fed reserve creates it without anything backing it and trades it for gov bonds that were also created. It’s all smoke and mirrors and there isn’t enough paper money in existence to pay off all the debt.

  32. 32
    boater says:

    By Wanttobuybutnotatthatprice @ 31:

    The quickest answer is it’s all fake money. Where does money come from? The fed reserve creates it without anything backing it and trades it for gov bonds that were also created. It’s all smoke and mirrors and there isn’t enough paper money in existence to pay off all the debt.

    Which is only slightly worse than the previous system which backed everything with a material who’s commercial uses are almost immaterial to the amount in current existence and is primarily valued because it’s shiny and you had to destroy half the earth to get it. But if a large enough group said ‘Gold. meh what’s it good for?’ would drop it’s value precipitously in short order. Oh wait that just happened.

    Put another way, everyday people have the option of putting their faith in a US dollar or an ounce of gold. Overwhelmingly they chose the US dollar. And before you add they are sheep. Everyone with any substantial wealth makes that choice consistently.

  33. 33

    By Wanttobuybutnotatthatprice @ 31:

    The quickest answer is it’s all fake money. Where does money come from? The fed reserve creates it without anything backing it and trades it for gov bonds that were also created. It’s all smoke and mirrors and there isn’t enough paper money in existence to pay off all the debt.

    Wow. First you complain about too much money (“fed reserve creates it without anything backing it [up]” and then you complain there isn’t enough! “there isn’t enough paper money in existence. . . .”

    FYI, very little of the money supply is in the form of paper money.

  34. 34
    wanttobuybutnotatthatprice says:

    :) It really wasn’t meant to be a complaint as much as I was just stating the facts. Yes rich people have some money in Dollars in a bank but they understand the nature of money and are onto the cycles before the masses. They move there money from investment to investment buying low and selling high. They were buying the houses in 2009-2012 and my guess is they are dumping there stocks now. Economic Crashes are necessary for Rich investors to make gains in housing and stocks so thinking that things will never go down in price (seattle housing) doesn’t seem realistic to me. All it would take is a stock market crash to readjust what all these dot comers are worth. I know a lot of people disagree with me but there are lots of factors about the whole monetary system that the average person isn’t even aware of that are going to need to be adjusted because seriously we can just keep printing money forever.

  35. 35
    Blurtman says:

    Sure it could crash. Presumably tightened loan standards will remove one possible cause of a RE crash. But a decrease in wealth due to a market crash might would certainly alter the balance sheets of homeowners. And it may decrease the size of the buyer pool, which may then decrease demand, and may cause prices to drop. But no one can time these events. You buy your ticket, you take your chances. We are all aliens here on vacation, and the intensity of your experience is proportional to how much you paid for the trip.

  36. 36
    Moirraine says:

    While you people argue metrics, homes are not getting to the people they need to be getting to – responsible homeowners who will NOT default.

    Washington state real estate professionals, banks and mortgage lenders are not all honest, in fact, most of them aren’t.

    Until we get a homesteading law passed in our state, we’re in for tens of thousands of more homeless as rents go up and incomes DO NOT.

    Homes with massive issues should be torn down BY the banks but they are being sold, harming more and more people who then DEFAULT on them OVER AND OVER AND OVER.

    WAKE THE HECK UP.

    This isn’t about metrics, it’s about the sad state of the homes that ARE for sale at prices that singles, elderly, poor, and the ill can afford.

  37. 37
    Alicexandria says:

    Now there are over 8000+ homes in foreclosure, many added onto Zillow in the last 60 days. About one every day for at least 200 days. There are almost more homes in foreclosure in WA in December 2016 then are for sale. Why?

Leave a Reply

Use your email address to sign up with Gravatar for a custom avatar.
Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Please read the rules before posting a comment.