Foreclosureville U.S.A.

[Double A]

Foreclosures May Hit 1.5 Million in U.S. Housing Bust (Update3)

By Bob Ivry

March 12 (Bloomberg) -- Hold on to your assets. The deepest housing decline in 16 years is about to get worse.

As many as 1.5 million more Americans may lose their homes, another 100,000 people in housing-related industries could be fired, and an estimated 100 additional subprime mortgage companies that lend money to people with bad or limited credit may go under, according to realtors, economists, analysts and a Federal Reserve governor. Financial stocks also could extend their declines over mortgage default worries.

The spring buying season, when more than half of all U.S. home sales are made, has been so disappointing that the National Association of Home Builders in Washington now expects purchases to fall for the sixth consecutive quarter after it predicted a gain just last month.

``The correction will last another year,'' said Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody's Economy.com in West Chester, Pennsylvania. ``Fewer people qualifying for mortgages means there will be less borrowers, and that will weigh on demand.''

A five-year housing boom that ended in 2006 expanded home- ownership to a record number of U.S. households. Now it has given way to mounting defaults, failing subprime mortgage companies and an increasing number of unsold homes.

Last Housing Slump

If this slump follows the same pattern as the last one, in 1991, it will persist for at least another year and may fuel a recession. New-home sales declined 45 percent from July 1989 to January 1991 and about 1 percent of all U.S. jobs, or 1.1 million, were lost in that recession, said Robert Kleinhenz, deputy chief economist of the California Association of Realtors.

This time around, new-home sales have declined 28 percent since September 2005, hitting a low in January, the last month for which data is available. And though the national jobless rate is near a five-year low this month, mortgage-related jobs fell by almost 2,000 in January alone. At least two dozen of the more than 8,000 mortgage lenders have been forced to close or sell operations since the start of 2006.

Subprime lenders Ameriquest Mortgage Co. in Irvine, California; Ownit Mortgage Solutions LLC and WMC Mortgage Corp., a subsidiary of General Electric Co., in Woodland Hills, California; Mortgage Lenders Network USA Inc. in Middletown, Connecticut and Fremont General Corp. together have fired more than 5,600 workers in the past year.

New Century

New Century Financial Corp., the second-largest subprime lender, said today it ran out of cash to pay back creditors who are demanding their money now. The Irvine, California-based company has lost 90 percent of its market value this year and stopped making new subprime loans, prompting speculation it will seek bankruptcy protection. New Century already has cut 300 jobs and its 7,000 remaining employees are waiting to see if the company will survive.

Fremont General, the Brea, California-based lender that is trying to sell its residential-mortgage unit, was ordered to stop making subprime loans by the U.S. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. last week. Fremont was marketing and extending loans ``in a way that substantially increased the likelihood of borrower default or other loss to the bank,'' the FDIC said last week.

Doug Duncan, chief economist of the Washington-based Mortgage Bankers Association, predicted in January that more than 100 home lenders may fail this year.

The subprime crisis ``has taken the fuel out of the real estate market,'' said Edward Leamer, director of the UCLA Anderson Forecast in Los Angeles. ``The market needs new money in order to appreciate, and all of that money is gone for a very long time. The regulators are not going to allow it to happen again.''

Higher Rates

Subprime mortgages are given to people who wouldn't qualify for standard home loans and typically have rates at least 2 or 3 percentage points above safer prime loans. The portion of subprime loans that financed new mortgages rose to 20 percent last year from 5 percent in 2001, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association.

Subprime loans contributed to a home-ownership rate that reached a record 69.3 percent of U.S. households in the second quarter of 2004, up 5.4 percentage points from the same period in 1991, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

``Probably the gain in home ownership over the last four, five years, is almost entirely due to looser lending standards,'' said James Fielding, a homebuilding credit analyst at Standard & Poor's in New York.

Refinancing Option

As home prices steadily gained from 2001 to 2006, homeowners who fell behind on mortgage payments could sell their homes and pay off their loans or get better refinancing terms based on the higher value of their property. Now that home values are declining, many borrowers won't be able to refinance because they would have to come up with the difference between their new mortgage and what their home is now worth.

Defaults may dump more than 500,000 homes on a housing market already saturated with leftover inventory built during boom times, New York-based bond research firm CreditSights Inc. said in a March 1 report.

Mortgage defaults may climb to $225 billion over the next two years, compared with about $40 billion annually in 2005 and 2006, according to debt strategists at Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.

Seven-Year High

The portion of subprime loans more than 60 days delinquent or in foreclosure rose to 10 percent as of Dec. 31, from 5.4 percent in May 2005, the highest in seven years, according to data compiled by Friedman Billings Ramsey Group Inc. of Arlington, Virginia.

Many of the delinquencies came from loans where borrowers didn't have to provide tax returns or other evidence of income, or where they financed 100 percent or more of the home's value, CreditSights analyst David Hendler wrote in a March 5 report. Other defaults came on adjustable-rate mortgages with artificially low introductory ``teaser'' rates, sometimes with ``option'' payment plans that allowed borrowers to defer interest.

Banks ought to be concerned about such loans and are likely to see more missed payments and foreclosures as consumers with weak credit histories begin to face higher monthly mortgage payments, Federal Reserve Governor Susan Bies said last week.

``What we're seeing in this narrow segment is the beginning of the wave,'' Bies said. ``This is not the end, this is the beginning.''

About 1.5 million U.S. homeowners out of a total of 80 million will lose their homes through foreclosure, University of California-Berkeley economist Ken Rosen said last week.

``The subprime borrowers paid too much for their homes, and all of a sudden, they'll see their house value drop by 10 to 15 percent,'' Rosen said.

Borrowers at Risk

The Center for Responsible Lending in Durham, North Carolina, said in a December study that as many as 2.2 million borrowers are at risk of losing their homes, at a potential cost of $164 billion, from subprime mortgages originated from 1998 through 2006.

The number of U.S. foreclosures rose 42 percent to 1.2 million last year from 2005, according to Irvine, California-based RealtyTrac, while delinquencies in the last three months of 2006 rose to the highest level in four years, the Federal Reserve said.

Housing and related industries, which account for about 23 percent of the U.S. economy -- including makers of everything from copper pipes to kitchen cabinets -- fired about 100,000 workers last year. The total will be higher this year, according to Amal Bendimerad of the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Job Cuts

By the end of this year, job cuts at companies including Benton Harbor, Michigan-based Whirlpool Corp., Masco Corp. of Taylor, Michigan, and St. Louis-based Emerson Electric Co. may exceed the fallout from the 1991 housing slump, said Paul Puryear, managing director at St. Petersburg, Florida-based Raymond James & Associates. The Bureau of Labor Statistics doesn't give data for housing-related job losses.

``The fallout in the early 1990s was much worse than what we've seen so far, but this downturn is not over,'' Puryear said. ``The full impact hasn't hit yet.''

U.S. House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat, said he may propose legislation to reign in ``inappropriate'' lending, and a House subcommittee is scheduled to consider subprime lending and foreclosures March 27.

``The standards got loosened so much, and there's always the pressure to make money that there was pressure to maybe make the questionable loans that shouldn't have been made,'' said Ohio Representative Paul Gillmor, the subcommittee's top Republican, in a March 9 interview. ``The major problem has been the overall deterioration in credit standards by lenders that's exacerbated by those who are unscrupulous.''

Fraud `Pervasive and Growing'

The Federal Bureau of Investigation says mortgage fraud is ``pervasive and growing'' and the incidence of such fraud has almost doubled in the past three years.

``There has been an increase in unscrupulous individuals in the market,'' said Arthur Prieston, chairman of the Prieston Group, a San Francisco-based company that investigates mortgage fraud. ``There's an unfair assumption of a connection between subprime failure and fraud. But there is a connection between early default and fraud.''

Mortgage fraud is committed when a borrower misrepresents himself or his finances to a lender. Some of that fraud involved speculators. They drove up prices during the boom by ordering new homes with the intent of selling them immediately after taking possession.

That ``flipping'' inflated demand and put the speculators in competition with the homebuilders, propelling the median U.S. home price to $276,000 last June from $177,000 in February 2001.

Housing Bubble

``A lot of the housing bubble was speculation,'' said Mike Inselmann of the Houston-based research firm Metrostudy.

When home prices got so high that speculators could no longer turn a profit, they canceled their contracts and walked away from their down payments.

Cancellation rates for new homes have surged to almost 40 percent of home contracts, Margaret Whelan, a New York-based analyst at UBS AG, said in a report on March 2.

That forced the top five U.S. homebuilders -- D.R. Horton Inc., Pulte Homes Inc., Lennar Corp., Centex Corp. and Toll Brothers Inc. -- to write off a combined $1.47 billion on abandoned land in the fourth quarter of 2006.

On top of that, new home sales plunged 17 percent last year from 2005, the biggest decline since 1990, according to the Chicago-based National Association of Home Builders. Existing home sales fell 8.4 percent in 2006 from a record in 2005, according to the National Association of Realtors.

`All 12 Months'

Donald Tomnitz, D.R. Horton's chief executive officer, said last week that his Fort Worth, Texas-based company would miss its projections for this year and that ``2007 is going to suck, all 12 months of the calendar year.''

A Standard and Poor's index of 16 homebuilders tumbled 4.1 percent today, its biggest decline since August, on concerns over increasing inventory and subprime defaults. The index has fallen 12 percent since Jan. 1.

D.R. Horton shares fell 5.1 percent today in New York Stock Exchange composite trading. Bloomfield Hills, Michigan-based Pulte dropped 4.8 percent; Lennar, based in Miami, dropped 4.9 percent; Dallas-based Centex lost 3.7 percent and Toll, based in Horsham, Pennsylvania, fell 3 percent.

Concern that the housing slump and defaults in the subprime mortgage industry will affect earnings at the largest banks and lenders has hurt financial stocks. They are the worst performers in the Standard & Poor's 500 Index since the benchmark reached a six- year high on Feb. 20. The group lost 5.6 percent, outpacing the broader index's 3.9 percent drop.

Investment banks including Merrill Lynch & Co., Deutsche Bank AG and Morgan Stanley have spent more than $4 billion over the past year to buy home-loan companies as add-ons to their mortgage-bond trading businesses. They needed loans to repackage into securities to sell to investors. Demand for higher yields led them into the subprime market. As that business flourished, financial firms either invested in subprime lenders of bought them.

`Too Early to Tell'

The number of U.S. financial institutions in the mortgage business jumped 16 percent to 8,848 in the past four years, according to the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council.

``It's a little too early to tell how it shakes out for investment banks,'' said Andrew Davidson, president of New York- based Andrew Davidson & Co., which advises fixed-income investors on mortgage bonds. ``If it turns out that they have large losses, the investment banks tend not to be very forgiving and usually terminate businesses that haven't worked for them.''

Dale Westhoff, a senior managing director at New York-based Bear Stearns Cos., the largest underwriter of mortgage bonds, said last week that failing subprime lenders ``are going to be absorbed very quickly.''

``Hedge funds and private equity are going to play a very important role in buying distressed assets,'' Westhoff said.

Optimists

In contrast to the 1991 housing skid, worker productivity is increasing, consumer confidence is expanding, interest rates remain within 1 percentage point of the 40-year low and the jobless rate fell to a five-year low last month. Last month, 7.4 million new and existing homes were sold at an annualized pace, more than twice the 1991 bottom.

And real estate people tend to be the world's most optimistic, said Bryce Bowman, director of development for Randolph Equities LLC in Chicago.

``There's a lot of capital chasing real estate and that has not ceased with this bust,'' Bowman said. ``Developers have stopped building crazy speculative housing developments and are burning off their inventory, so we're excited about the end of '07, and we want to be ready to go when business picks up in '08.''

To contact the reporter on this story: Bob Ivry in New York at bivry@bloomberg.net .

[NCTulsan]

I've said it before on other threads, and I'll say it again.  Be very grateful that Tulsa is not a high-growth city with national homebuilders.  If that were the case, this national foreclosure epidemic would be much worse in our fair city.  Charlotte (my current place of residence) has been hit hard ..... lots of foreclosures in lots of national-built plastic villages, resulting in LOTS of new ghettos and high crime.

[deinstein]

It's give and take. We may not have high growth, but we also don't have a great economy in comparison to something like Charlotte. I mean, I'll take a little instability for Bank of America and Wachovia headquarters.

[Double A]

Anybody know if the foreclosure rate in Tulsa is the similar to the national trends?

[Double A]

House of (Debt) Cards

by Tula Connell, Mar 26, 2007

The crumbling house of cards spilling across the subprime mortgage loan industry is big news right now. There were signs these risky loans could cause problems as early as two years ago, but it takes awhile for the mainstream media to pick up on bad economic trends. As economist Tom Palley puts it, "the U.S. economy is showing signs of a potentially rapid deceleration."


Source: Economic Policy Institute


   In particular, there is accumulating evidence that the housing sector slowdown may be becoming a meltdown. In many areas house prices are falling, house sales are down nationally, and mortgage delinquencies and foreclosures are rising—especially in the sub-prime market. This has caused tremors in broader financial markets. The only good news is employment and wages continue growing, but labor markets conditions are also widely viewed as a lagging indicator.

Of course, just as quickly as the media is finally getting the story, corporate apologists are trying to make the nation's deep debt look like no big deal.

David Leonhardt's Economix column in The New York Times this week is a case in point. Leonhardt makes the usual stabs at showing both sides, but, ultimately, comes down on the side of "don't worry, be happy." The trope he uses is a familiar one: Point out that our concern over Issue X has been going on for a long time. Then conclude that since Issue X wasn't as bad as we thought the first time, it won't be now. In this case, Leonhardt uses the re-release of a 1912 film, "The Usurer's Grip," to show how the nation long has worried over debt. He describes the film as

   a cautionary tale about borrowed money that revolves around the Jenkses, a fictional middle-class family who need a $25 loan so their young daughter can be treated for consumption. After a loan shark tricks Mr. Jenks into borrowing at an interest rate of 180 percent, the family is brought to the brink of ruin.

And he ultimately concludes that a few new guidelines, "voluntary or government-imposed, will force lenders to be clearer about the terms they're offering borrowers" and the mess will be solved.

But economist Stephen Roach at Morgan Stanley sees it this way:

   To me, the real debate is about "spillovers"—whether the housing downturn will spread to the rest of the economy. In my view, the lessons of the dot-com shakeout are key in this instance. Seven years ago, the spillover effects played out with a vengeance in the corporate sector, where the dot-com mania had prompted an unsustainable binge in capital spending and hiring. The unwinding of that binge triggered the recession of 2000–01. Today, the spillover effects are likely to be concentrated in the much large consumer sector. And the loss of that pillar of support is perfectly capable of triggering yet another post-bubble recession.

And although household debt was big news a few years ago, the media seems to have become bored with the issue—even though total consumer credit debt, excluding mortgages, hit a record $2.4 trillion in September. Factoring in mortgages, outstanding household debt soars to about $12.3 trillion.  Based on figures from the Federal Reserve, the Center for American Progress found that Americans for the first time owe more money than they make: The average family now is spending 14.4 percent of its disposable income on debt repayments—the  largest share since the Fed began collecting such data in 1980.

Leonhardt briefly references how the enormous amount of foreign capital flowing into the nation has enabled the mortgage business to "become bigger, more competitive and more innovative." A look at this foreign capital highlights the context missing from Leonhardt's piece. In 1912, the United States was not a debtor nation. But in 2007, the world's richest nation (that's us) is borrowing from the world's poorest nations to the tune of more than 6 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP). Kenneth Rogoff, a Harvard economic professor and former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, puts it this way:

   This is not a normal state of affairs. And it's certainly not something we expect to see from the world's richest country. Back when Britain was on top they were lending money to the world, but we're borrowing from the rest of the world. Our current account trade deficit is now more than our defense spending and incredibly we've been borrowing from the rest of the world like this for several years now. I think we're going to reach a point where the rest of the world decides that they don't want to lend to us. And that can be kind of traumatic.

Which brings us to another movie Leonhardt should take a look at. Rogoff discusses the nation's debt crisis in the recently released documentary film, "TIME-BOMB: America's Debt Crises, Causes, Consequences and Solutions."

John Ince, a former reporter at Fortune magazine and the film's producer/director, writes:

   Recently the Chinese, holders of about $1 trillion in U.S. Treasuries, recently set up a new agency of their central bank to take a hard look at their investments overseas, and their continued financing of U.S. deficits may come under close scrutiny. If global investors were to begin to balk at picking up the tab for American excesses, it would be a monumental embarrassment to the United States.

   In FY [fiscal year] 2006, the current account trade deficit is on track to set yet another record, on the order of $700 billion. To put this in perspective, billionaire investor Warren Buffet points out that, "Fifteen years ago, the U.S. had no trade deficit with China. Now, it's 200 billion dollars." He says if the country does not change course, the rest of the world could end up owning $15 trillion worth of the United States. That's equal to the value of all American stock.

Roach notes China's export growth surged to 41.5 percent so far this year—"a dramatic acceleration from the still rapid 27 percent pace of 2006." On this side of the Pacific, the United States accumulated a record $764 billion trade deficit, with the Bush administration's flawed trade policy in large part behind this staggering debt. Current trade policy has cost the United States millions of good jobs by encouraging multinational corporations to move overseas with tax breaks, lopsided trade rules and an overvalued currency. (Check out the AFL-CIO recommendations on the nation's trade policies here.)

So, the subprime mortgage loan collapse is not the only debt crisis of concern. It's the bigger picture of the nation's debt crisis—personal, national and trade—that's tumbling across the nation like a fragile house of cards.

[rwarn17588]

I said on this board nearly three years ago that mortgage companies were far too permissive and that a day of reckoning was coming.

Right before we came to town here, I found out that we qualified for a $130,000 mortgage, which was far more than what we needed.

Then I found out the mortgage company was basing that on *my* modest income alone and not factoring in my wife's, also.

It's nuts. There's no way to max out your allowable mortgage and have much left over to pay for your car, gas, utilities and food.

These high-risk, no-money-down mortgages are certainly part of the problem, and some reform is in order.

But Americans also need to stop this bigger-the-better attitude about homes and stop living so deep in the suburbs that gasoline costs rival your mortgage payments.

If you don't pay as much for your house, you have more money left over for maintenance, car, utilities, food and even some FUN stuff.

[TheArtist]

I remember when I bought my house 3 years ago now.  I went to the real estate agent filled out some paperwork, then got a phone call.  I was actually expecting to get turned down for a mortgage.  The lady said,  You can get whatever you want.  I was shocked, and it sure sounded tempting.  But I went for something that I felt would be in a "safe payment" range.  I still had to get one of those, first 2 years locked in, then refinance after you have built credit reliability over those first 2 years.  Amazing how they didn't seem to mind how much your mortgage was for.  After those 2 years you may remember on here how I asked for honest referrals to refinance, for I got that first notice and first raise of payment in the mail, and yes it was not pleasant lol.  One thing that isnt well known is that, yes there are caps on how much they can raise the rates, but no limit on the number of times they can do so. They can just keep doing it until you can't afford it and have to sell.  Then they get ya for penalties etc.  All that money you paid for those first 2 years was not paying equity, unless you paid extra, but was for interest on the loan.  They get it all.  Then they force you out of the house and start all over again.

Luckily I was able to pay the higher bills, come up with closing costs, again, refinance with a locked in rate, and keep my home. Was not a pleasant experience, but, me and kitty have a house now. []

[inteller]

i got mad at how much they mortgage people tried to push me into those risky finance deals.  I said, " I just want a traditional 30 year no points, no gimmicks mortgage"  they just looked at me like I had spoiled their party or something..."well yeah I guess we can still do one of THOSE" like they were evil or something.

the mortgage business is pretty shady.

[RLitterell]

quote:Originally posted by inteller

i got mad at how much they mortgage people tried to push me into those risky finance deals.  I said, " I just want a traditional 30 year no points, no gimmicks mortgage"  they just looked at me like I had spoiled their party or something..."well yeah I guess we can still do one of THOSE" like they were evil or something.

the mortgage business is pretty shady.

Yup, look whats happening now in the sub-prime market.

[cannon_fodder]

Buyer be ware.

Mortgage brokers and banks are looking out for themselves.  They get extra commission if they sell you a loan that makes their underwriter more money.  It is YOUR job to make sure you dont get screwed.

I dont get why this is such a big deal.  People making $50,000 a year buying $250,000 homes on 6% interest only mortgage with a $180,000 10 year balloon?  Gee, I never saw default coming on that one.  

The lenders knew what they were getting into and  in most instances have made enough money to come out ahead.  The borrowers either knew or should have known what they were getting into and got to live in a nice house for under its value for several years.  No sympathy for any of the parties involved from me.

Also, since everyone knew this storm was coming (and will not peak for 2 or 3 more years when balloon payments start becoming due) I dont expect there to be any real calamity.

[Steve]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Buyer be ware.

It is YOUR job to make sure you dont get screwed.

I dont get why this is such a big deal.  People making $50,000 a year buying $250,000 homes on 6% interest only mortgage with a $180,000 10 year balloon?  Gee, I never saw default coming on that one.  

I agree with you.  People today, especially young adults, want the biggest and best NOW, and are not willing to live within their means.  They have no concept of acquiring homes and assets gradually over time.  They got to have that brand new 2,500+ sq. ft. house with giant spa-like bathrooms and a $6,000 kitchen range that is never used, NOW.   What used to be considered a "starter home" 30 years ago would fit into the garage of some homes they build today.  Its all about instant gratification and appearances with no thought to long-term consequences or affordability.

I have no sympathy for those losing homes today that they should have never bought in the first place.  Unfortunately, those of us that are financially responsible and society in general will pay in some form, however minor, through falling property values, rising crime and taxes.  I suppose it is all just part of ongoing boom & bust economic cycles.

[bigdtottown]

I don't have numbers specific to Tulsa but as of February Oklahoma's foreclosure rate was one per 1,074 homes, which is 21st nationally.  This is a 15.43% reduction from a year before.
BTW, lenders HATE to have to foreclose, it's expensive and a PITA.  I've been a lender/broker for 7 years and this sub prime mess is a two way street, buyers pushing for the maximum they can borrow and lenders letting them do it.  An overarching issue is that the capital markets have been flooded since the tech melt down which resulted in easy money for borrowers.
Also, on adjustable rate mortgages, there are both yearly and life of loan caps which the loan can not exceed, of course they are designed to be refinanced after the fixed interest period since they borrower has, hopefully, paid on time and considerably improved their credit.

[TulsaFan-inTexas]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

I said on this board nearly three years ago that mortgage companies were far too permissive and that a day of reckoning was coming.

Right before we came to town here, I found out that we qualified for a $130,000 mortgage, which was far more than what we needed.

Then I found out the mortgage company was basing that on *my* modest income alone and not factoring in my wife's, also.

It's nuts. There's no way to max out your allowable mortgage and have much left over to pay for your car, gas, utilities and food.

These high-risk, no-money-down mortgages are certainly part of the problem, and some reform is in order.

But Americans also need to stop this bigger-the-better attitude about homes and stop living so deep in the suburbs that gasoline costs rival your mortgage payments.

If you don't pay as much for your house, you have more money left over for maintenance, car, utilities, food and even some FUN stuff.

I tend to agree. We have several friends down here in Texas that have purchased 450K homes in Colleyville (FW suburb) on a collective income of maybe 120K per year. Not only are the mortgages expensive, but the cost of insurance, property taxes, and the electric bills for these 4000 square foot mansions (for three people) must run them about 4000 to 5000 dollars a month. And practically EVERYTHING they do is on the credit card; they probably haven't seen a checkbook or paid cash for anything in ages.

And you walk into these people's houses and it's like walking into a museum. Don't touch this, don't touch that, glass everywhere, no real living spaces that are comfy.

It's all about show and "one-upping the Jones'" in most of these people's cases because we know for a fact that although they aren't struggling to meet the bills, if one or the other gets laid off or fired they are two or three months from living on the street.

It's really odd to me because I don't understand the value system that would propagate such behavior. I guess they watch too much television and think everyone should live in a marble mansion and in their cases, way, way, way beyond their means.

It's ironic that these people's parents, who have saved their entire lives and are sitting on a nice little retirement fund of probably nearly a million dollars, are living in 1800 square foot houses in our neighborhood. I guess "the kids" expect they'll get that money when the parents die off. It's kind of sad if you ask me and pretty reflective of what people expect these days; they think they deserve it all for some reason..

[rwarn17588]

^Well said.

I'm in Red Fork, an area which is lousy with 900- to 1,500-square-foot houses. Residents here are either frugal retirees, young families with starter homes, or renters who are cooling their heels for a while and saving up for that first home.

People here are thankful for what they have, and don't stoop to that lookie-what-I-got attitude.  I have a beehive in the back yard, and no one gives me static about it. It's the opposite, I reckon, to what you find in Owasso, Bixby and south Tulsa, and I like it that way.

[Steve]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

^Well said.

I'm in Red Fork, an area which is lousy with 900- to 1,500-square-foot houses. Residents here are either frugal retirees, young families with starter homes, or renters who are cooling their heels for a while and saving up for that first home.

People here are thankful for what they have, and don't stoop to that lookie-what-I-got attitude.  I have a beehive in the back yard, and no one gives me static about it. It's the opposite, I reckon, to what you find in Owasso, Bixby and south Tulsa, and I like it that way.

Same for me; I live in Lortondale mid-town Tulsa, homes range from 1250-1600 sq. ft., exclusive of remodel or add-ons.  My neighborhood is currently being surveyed by the Tulsa Preservation Commission for inclusion on the National Historic Register.

Your beehive wouldn't bother me in the least.  Bees are really quite docile and very beneficial creatures (except the africanized variety!)  I have a neighbor close behind me that keeps chickens and I can hear a rooster crowing at 5 in the morning.  While not necessarily against city ordinance, it is against our subdivision restrictive covenants to keep any poultry; I may have to remind these people about that.