In the previous article A Comparison of Minneapolis’ Foreclosure Rates by Ward, I compared and contrasted the difference in foreclosure rates between Wards 4 and 5 in North Minneapolis, and Ward 2 in Northeast Minneapolis and Ward 10 in Southwest Minneapolis.
However, I only compared the wards and their respective foreclosure rates from the first quarter in 2014 to the second quarter in 2015. But even with that short of a time scale, I illustrated a clear distinction between the high rates in North Minneapolis and the low rates in Northeast and Southwest Minneapolis.
But that analysis and data facilitated new questions. For example, what would the trends of the foreclosure rates between the wards in Minneapolis look like over multiple years? What type of trends would the data set illustrate? How would the Great Recession affect the data and consequently the different wards; that is, would there be a peak in foreclosures around or during the peak of the Great Recession? Would there be a noticeable peak for any of the Wards?
In Figure 1, we see a sharp contrast between Ward 10 in Southwest Minneapolis and Wards 4 and 5 in North Minneapolis. The table provides a lot of useful information for us to digest and consider. However, for this article we will consider only three facts. First, Ward 4 from the 4th quarter of 2006 to the 2nd quarter of 2015 experienced the highest number of foreclosures in the city with the exception of two quarters.
In the second quarter of 2007 and the 4th quarter of 2008, Ward 5 had a higher number of foreclosures than Ward 4. Other than that, Ward 4 has been the central location of foreclosures along with the highest foreclosure rates in the city since the fourth quarter of 2006.
Second, the foreclosure numbers in Ward 4 had been trending downward throughout 2008. However, in early 2009, around the same time of the pinnacle of the Great Recession, the number of foreclosures in the 4th Ward began trending upward. And in the third quarter of 2010, the number of foreclosures in North Minneapolis reached pre-Great Recession numbers. In other words, as soon as North Minneapolis began to recover from 911, the Great Recession happened, which may help explain the sharp peak in late 2010.
Of course at first glance, the consequence of 911 is only speculation and probably not very good speculation. This is because it doesn’t explain the low number of foreclosures in Ward 10. And it doesn’t explain the amazingly low foreclosure numbers in Ward 2, which will be illustrated in the next article. Additional data of foreclosures from 2002 to 2006 is needed along with economic data like unemployment and education.
Finally, the number of foreclosures in Southwest Minneapolis has been fairly low and fairly consistent. Only once did the number of foreclosures rise above 30 and that was before the peak of the Great Recession. Since then, it has been on a steady downward trend into the single digits of foreclosures. In other words, the 10th Ward weathered the Great Recession quite well.
There is one bright spot in this data set that is clear. Although the 4th and 5th Wards continue to post the highest number of foreclosures month after month, there is an obvious downward trend and the data seems to suggest that Wards 4 and 5 foreclosure numbers will converge with Ward 10. That is the one positive that can be taken from this data set immediately. A caveat, Figure 2 seems to be suggesting a different story.
What’s next? First, find out if there is a correlation between the number of foreclosures and the number of condemned and vacant buildings. In a previous article, it was illustrated that Wards 4 and 5 had the highest concentrations of condemned and vacant buildings in Minneapolis. so this would be a good place to start. Second, compare the unemployment rates and this data set. Is there overlap? In other words, as the unemployment rates go, so do the foreclosure rates follow? There are other comparisons that will be researched and posted in Urban Dynamics as well.