Is Predatory Mortgage Lending Activity Spatially Clustered?

Professional Geographer

Volumn 62, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 153-170

  Crossney, Kristen B ^a  

^a WEST CHESTER UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Homeownership housing policy; Mortgages; Philadelphia; Predatory lending

Indexed keywords

CAPITAL; GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION; HOMEOWNERSHIP; HOUSING POLICY; LENDING BEHAVIOR; MORTGAGE LENDING; SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION;

PENNSYLVANIA; PHILADELPHIA; UNITED STATES;

EID: 77951120940     PISSN: 00330124     EISSN: 14679272     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00330120903546288     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Adams, C., D. W. Bartelt, D. W. Elesh, I. Goldstein, N. Kleniewski, and W. Yancey. 1991. Philadelphia: Neighborhoods, division, and conflict in a postindustrial city. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
2. Ashton, P. 2008. Advantage or disadvantage? Urban Affairs Review 43 (3): 352-402.
3. Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. 2004. Separate and unequal: Predatory lending in America. Washington, DC: Association of Com-
4. munity Organizations for Reform Now. Bartelt, D. W. 2008. Subprime lending in the Philadelphia metropolitan region. Philadelphia: Metropolitan Philadelphia Indicators Project.
5. Bartelt, D. W., D. Elesh, I. Goldstein, G. Leon, and W. Yancey. 1987. Islands in the stream: Neigh- borhoods and the political economy of the city. In Neighborhoods and community environments, ed. I. Altman and A. Wandersman, 163-89. New York: Plenum.
6. Bluestone, B., and B. Harrison. 1982. The deindustri- alization of America. New York: Basic Books. Boehm, T. P., and A. M. Schlottmann. 2002. Hous- ing and wealth accumulation. In Low-income home- ownership: Examining the unexamined goal, ed. E. Belsky, 407-26. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
7. Burchell, R. W., and D. Listokin. 1980. Adaptive reuse handbook. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University.
8. Carr, J. H., and J. Schuetz. 2001. Financial services in distressed communities: Framing the issue, finding solutions. Washington, DC: Fannie Mae Foundation.
9. Case, K. E., and M. Marynchenko. 2002. Home ap- preciation in low- and moderate-income markets. In Low-income homeownership: Examining the unexamined goal, ed. E. Belsky, 239-56. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
10. Charney,I.2001.Threedimensionsofcapitalswitch- ing within the real estate sector: A Canadian case study. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 25 (4): 740-58.
11. Council passes a lending bill in Philadelphia. 2001. New York Times 6 April: C2.
12. Crossney, K. B., and D. W. Bartelt. 2005. Residen- tial security, risk, and race: The home owners' loan corporation and mortgage access in two cities. Urban Geography 26 (8): 707-36.
13. Crump, J., K. Newman, E. Belsky, P. Ashton, D. Kaplan, and D. Hammel. 2008. Cities destroyed (again) for cash: Forum on the U.S. foreclosure crisis. Urban Geography 29:745-84.
14. Dennis, R. 2008. Cities in modernity: Representations and productions of metropolitan space, 1840-1930. New York: Cambridge University Press.
15. Ellen, I. G., M. H. Schill, S. Susin, and A. E. Schwartz. 2001. Building homes, reviving neigh- borhoods: Spillovers from subsidized construction of owner-occupied housing in New York City. Journal of Housing Research 12 (2): 185-216.
16. Elliehausen, G., and M. E. Staten. 2004. Regula- tion of subprime mortgage products: An analysis of North Carolina's predatory lending law. Jour- nal of Real Estate Finance and Economics 29 (4): 411- 33.
17. Engel, K. C., and P. A. McCoy. 2002. A tale of three markets:Thelawandeconomicsofpredatorylending. Texas Law Review 80:1255-366.
18. Federal Trade Commission. 2006. Facts for consumers: High-rate, high-fee loans (HOEPA/Section 32 Mort- gages). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
19. Galster, G. C. 1992. Research on discrimination in housing and mortgage markets: Assessment and future directions. Housing Policy Debate 3 (4): 639-83.
20. Geolytics, 2003. Neighborhood change database. East Brunswick, NJ: Geolytics.
21. Harvey, D. 1978. The urban process under capital- ism: A framework for analysis. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 2:101-31.
22. Haurin, D. R., R. D. Dietz, and B. A. Weinberg. 2003. The impact of neighborhood homeowner- ship rates: A review of the theoretical and empirical literature. Journal of Housing Research 13 (2): 119-51.
23. Holloway, S. R. 1998. Exploring the neighborhood contingency of race discrimination in mortgage lending in Columbus, Ohio. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 88 (2): 252-76.
24. Johnson, S. 2009. Philadelphia shows the way to slow foreclosures. Women's eNews. January 18. http:// www.womensenews.org/story/090118/philadelphia- shows-the-way-slow-foreclosures (last accessed 15 July 2009).
25. Kaplan, D. H., and G. G. Sommers. 2009. An analysis of the relationship between housing foreclosures, lending practices, and neighborhood ecology: Evidence from a distressed county. The Professional Geographer 61 (1): 101-20.
26. Lake, R. W. 2002. Bring back big government. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 26 (4): 815-22.
27. Levine, N. 2004. CrimeStat III: A spatial statistics program for the analysis of crime incident locations (version 3.0). Houston, TX and Washington, DC: Ned Levine & Associates and National Institute of Justice.
28. Li, W., and K. Ernst. 2006. The best value in the subprime market: State predatory lending reforms. Durham, NC: Center for Responsible Lending.
29. Listokin, D., and S. Casey. 1980. Mortgage lending and race. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research.
30. Listokin, D., and E. K. Wyly. 1998. Successful mortgage lending strategies for the underserved. Washing- ton, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
31. Listokin, D., E. K. Wyly, L. Keating, K. M. Rengert, and B. Listokin. 2000. Making new mortgage markets: Case studies of institutions, home buyers, and communities. Washington, DC: The Fannie Mae Foundation.
32. Litan, R. E. 2001. A prudent approach to preventing predatory lending. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
33. Mian, A., and A. Sufi. 2008. The consequences of mortgage credit expansion: Evidence from the 2007 mortgage default crisis. Unpublished manuscript. University of Chicago Graduate School of Business. http://ssrn.com/abstract= 1072304 (last accessed 10 March 2009)
34. Munnell, A. H., L. E. Browne, J. McEneaney, and G. M. B. Tootell. 1996. Mortgage lending in Boston: Interpreting HMDA data. American Economic Review 86 (1): 25-53.
35. Nelson, K. P. 2002. Housing needs and effective policies in high-tech metropolitan economies. Housing Policy Debate 13 (2): 417-68.
36. Newman, K., and E. K. Wyly. 2004. Geographies of mortgage market segmentation: The case of Essex County, New Jersey. Housing Studies 19 (1): 53-83.
37. Oppel, R. A., Jr., and P. McGeehan. 2001. Lenders try to fed off laws on subprime loans. New York Times 4 April:C1.
38. Quercia, R. G., M. Stegman, and W. R. Davis. 2004. Assessing the impact of North Carolina's anti- predatory lending law. Housing Policy Debate 15 (3): 573-602.
39. The Reinvestment Fund (TRF). 2007. Lost values. Philadelphia: TRF.
40. Rohe, W. M., and M. Stegman.1994a. The impact of homeownership on the social and political involve- ment of low income people. Urban Affairs Quarterly 30:28-50.
41. Rohe, W. M. 1994b. The impacts of homeownership on the self-esteem, perceived control and life satisfaction of low-income people. Journal of the American Planning Association 60 (1): 173-84.
42. Rohe, W. M., and L. Stewart. 1996. Home ownership and neighborhood stability. Housing Policy Debate 7 (1): 37-81.
43. Rohe, W. M., S. Van Zandt, and G. McCarthy. 2002. Social benefits and costs of homeownership. In Low-income homeownership: Examining the unexamined goal, ed. E. Belsky, 381-406. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
44. Ross, S. L., and J. Yinger. 2002. Color of credit: Mort- gage discrimination, research methods, and fair lending enforcement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
45. Rossi, P. H., and E. Weber. 1996. The social benefits of homeownership: Empirical evidence from national surveys. Housing Policy Debate 7 (1): 1-35.
46. Rothenberg, J., G. C. Galster, R. V. Butler, and J. R. Pitkin. 1991. The maze of urban housing markets: Theory, evidence, and policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
47. Shapiro, T. M. 2004. The hidden cost of being African American: How wealth perpetuates inequality. New York: Oxford University Press.
48. Shields, J. 2008. Philadelphia sheriff's home sales suspended. Philadelphia Inquirer 28 March 2008:B01.
49. Smith, N. 2002. New globalism, new urbanism: Gen- trification as global urban strategy. Antipode 34 (3): 427-50.
50. Squires, G. D. 2004. The new redlining. In Why the poor pay more, ed. G. D. Squires, 1-23. Westport, CT: Praeger.
51. Tootell, G. M. B. 1996. Redlining in Boston: Do mortgage lenders discriminate against neighbor- hoods?. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 111 (4): 1049-79.
52. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and U.S. Department of the Treasury. 2000. Curbing predatory home mortgage lending: A joint report. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
53. Van Order, R. 2000. The U.S. mortgage market: A model of dueling charters. Journal of Housing Re- search 11 (2): 233-56.
54. Wyly, E.K.,and D.J. Hammel.1999.Islands of decay in seas of renewal: Urban policy and the resurgence of gentrification. Housing Policy Debate 10:711-71.
55. Wyly, E. K., D. J. Hammel, and M. Atia. 2004. Has mortgage capital found an inner-city spatial fix? Housing Policy Debate 15 (3): 623-85.