Obama '08?

I suspect that the reality involved a little of what you asserted and some racism as well. However, you do raise an excellent point. Namely that in the philopsophic world of affirmative action, any conclusion anyone reaches on almost any issue that serves to harm the interests of "protected" minorities is deemed to be racism, no matter how unrelated the criteria and motives of those involved may have been with respect to race.

Communities in Crisis: Race and Mortgage Lending in the Twin Cities

"Homeownership has been the first step to building stability and wealth for Americans," explains Myron Orfield, Executive Director of the Institute on Race & Poverty. "Research shows that during the peak years for subprime lending, people of color and the neighborhoods where they live were at a clear disadvantage in lending markets. This crisis has cost another generation of people of color the equal opportunity to join America's middle class. Strong steps need to be taken to ensure equal access to credit and the promise of homeownership for people of color."

The study shows that income was no shield against mortgage lending disparities for people of color. Lenders were substantially more likely to deny loans to people of color, regardless of their income. For instance, very high-income blacks, Asians, and Hispanics, making more than $157,000 a year, were much more likely to be denied mortgage loans than whites making less than $39,250. The denial disparities were greatest for black borrowers. The denial rate for blacks with incomes above $157,000 was 25%, while it was just 11% for whites making $39,250.

Similarly, even very high income people of color were much more likely to receive subprime loans. High and very-high income black and Hispanic borrowers were more likely to receive subprime loans than in any white income group.

Racial segregation in the Twin Cities contributed to the problem. Segregated neighborhoods of color in the Twin Cities are under-served by prime lending institutions. Both borrowers of color and white borrowers were less likely to apply with a prime lender in segregated neighborhoods of color than in predominately white neighborhoods, regardless of income.

"This unequal access to prime lenders, banks that issued mostly prime loans, contributed to higher subprime loan rates for people of color, " said Eric Myott, a research fellow at the Institute, citing a national study that showed Minneapolis ranks last in the number of bank branches in communities of color among large metro areas in the nation. "However," he said, "even when people of color accessed prime lenders, they were more likely to be denied than whites."

While subprime lending is usually legal, racial discrimination in lending is not. Numerous laws, including the Fair Housing Act, The Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and the Community Reinvestment Act outlaw and attempt to remedy racial disparities in home mortgage lending. Federal officials, however, did not aggressively pursue lending discrimination during the subprime boom. Geneva Finn, a research fellow at the Institute commented that "this lack of effective enforcement of fair lending laws meant that discriminatory or predatory lending behavior faced little threat of punishment."

Subprime lending disparities for communities of color became foreclosure disparities. The observed disparities in lending patterns correlate wih the impacts of the region's foreclosure crisis. The enormous costs of foreclosures - to families who lose their homes as well s to cities and towns losing tax resources - have been greatest for communities of color. Both subprime lending rates and foreclosure rates have been highest in neighborhoods with the highest percentages of people of color. The impact of these patterns is especially notable in North Minneapolis, an area where prime lenders are notceably under-represented and subprime leanders are significantsly over-represented.

The study found that the Twin Cities has lending disparities that are not easily explained by income differences between groups. Likewise, it found that prime credit is not reaching neighborhoods that need it the most: the segregated, high poverty neighborhoods that the Fair Housing Act was designed to eliminate.

The report recommends a multi-faceted approach to mortgage lending disparities. "The mortgage market needs to be carefully monitored for unfair disparities and fair lending laws need to be enforced," said Orfield. "In order to do that, we need to expand and aggressively enforce the Community Reinvestment Act, establish a fair housing center in the Twin Cities to monitor all segments of the housing market, and the scope of the HMDA data set needs to be expanded. Finally, federal enforcement of Fair Lending laws needs to resume in an aggressive manner."

I made a point that racially unequal outcomes do not prove that racism was the cause of it. Do you ignore the truth of that? So, just because redlined areas may have many or even more minority dominated neighborhoods in them, you cannot simply assume that is due to racism. You will need to provide some other proof for your pre-conceived liberal template, cyclops. If you can provide a link that has a proof like that, I will read it. Otherwise, I am not interested.

The first series, published May 1-4, 1998, disclosed that Atlanta's banks and savings and loan institutions, although they had made loans for years in even the poorest white neighborhoods of Atlanta, did not lend in middle-class or more affluent black neighborhoods. The focus moved to lenders across the nation with the January 1989 article, "Blacks turned down for home loans from S&Ls twice as often as whites."

As a result of the stories, the federal Home Mortgage Disclosure Act was expanded to provide more information to the public on the pattern of activity by all mortgage lenders.

I made a point that racially unequal outcomes do not prove that racism was the cause of it. Do you ignore the truth of that? So, just because redlined areas may have many or even more minority dominated neighborhoods in them, you cannot simply assume that is due to racism. You will need to provide some other proof for your pre-conceived liberal template, cyclops. If you can provide a link that has a proof like that, I will read it. Otherwise, I am not interested.

By the way, I am all in favor of eliminating all questions about race by the Census Bureau, so that we can end this nonsense about racial breakdown of neighborhoods, communities, and all of that. Will you join me in my opinion for that, or do you wish to continue the racist view of statistical data and people?

If you call that evidence, no wonder we can't agree. Again, as I have pointed out, you simply point out unequal outcomes, but you provide no evidence whatsoever of unequal evaluations of applicants for loans. The applicants are turned down, but why were they turned down?

I seriously doubt the loan applicants were turned down because of race

they were probably turned down because of unqualified financial or credit history and projected ability to pay the loans. Most people in business don't care what color somebody is, black, white, green, or yellow, if they can sell their product or service to them and make a buck. Fact is, I would bet, and I think I have heard this, that some of the redlining was done by black owned banks.

Again, if you can come up with any evidence of redlining based upon race, let me know, but otherwise kindly quit posting your demogoguery, okay. Simply posting data of unequal outcomes proves nothing.

Until we mix completely, and become a United States ethnicity, the questions of race serves a purpose to those that believe that ethnicity correlates statistically to certain things.

Maybe you can provide a quote from one of those links that you think proves your point. I doubt there is any proof at all.

Ok Okie, how do you account for the fact that blacks who made a heck of a lot more income than whites were turned down for prime loans? I doubt all had bad credit checks or home equity more than their fellow white applicants who made less income. I guess those bank loaners just assume blacks are a high risk regardless of higher income verses white folks whith low income.

You are correct, I did not read all of your links. I don't have time to read all of the crap you post here. My apologies. Maybe you can provide a quote from one of those links that you think proves your point. I doubt there is any proof at all.

One of the ways to end this crap is to tell the Census Bureau to quit counting by race or color. After all, it shouldn't matter. Will you join me in calling for that to end? Your answer will show what you actually want to happen and whether your mindset is as pure as you claim to be.

Until cyclops provides proof that the banks knew what color the applicants were and that they used race to determine whether to make the loans, all he is doing is posting crap here. Anybody knows that statistics can be used to show almost anything if somebody dishonest is using them for a purpose.

One of the ways to end this crap is to tell the Census Bureau to quit counting by race or color. After all, it shouldn't matter. Will you join me in calling for that to end? Your answer will show what you actually want to happen and whether your mindset is as pure as you claim to be.

okie wrote:

One of the ways to end this crap is to tell the Census Bureau to quit counting by race or color. After all, it shouldn't matter. Will you join me in calling for that to end? Your answer will show what you actually want to happen and whether your mindset is as pure as you claim to be.