
The first house on today's Tour de Foreclosure takes us to a busy street, a major throughway between the even-bigger Connecticut Ave. and the huge Veirs Mill Road.
The story of how this home came to be empty goes like this:
Purchased in 1999 for $149,000. Sold to a Mr. G in 2006 for $415,000. That's [gets out calculator] $266,000 profit in only 7 years. Since the house had an unrectifiable problem--situated on a very busy street--it did not become stratospherically expensive. But still. Using the traditional 1:3 ratio--which I'm positive was
not used when the bank handed the ARM to the buyer--an annual income of almost $140,000 would be needed in order to afford it. Even if the buyer put 20% down (about $85,000 As if! Srsly.), he would have to be earning about $100,000 a year--and
still be house poor.
And, when the auto-erotic asphixiation of getting into this house was all said and done, nothing could change the fact that, gee, it's on a really busy street. How would you like to work your ass off all day long and then come home to a house that rattles from the traffic going by 24/7?
Okay, well, it's not the owner's problem anymore because the foreclosure was finalized about three weeks ago. Now it sits empty. Most banks in this area are still living in a freaky dreamworld because homes like this are on the REO listing for $375,000.

Next up is a house up the street from mine, purchased in 2004 for $340,000, sold in January 2007 for--get this--$478,000. Yep. A cool half-mill for this baby, all three bedrooms and one bathroom of her. Straight away, the new owners built this crazy-ass fence, probably trying to hide from the prying eyes of people wanting to see who was stupid enough to buy such a meh house for so much money. The fence starts and then stops for the driveway. Starts and pauses again for the front walkway. Then it starts up and goes for a little while until it reaches the corner. At which point, it gives up the ghost and succumbs to chain link.

Meanwhile, we have a yellow house with white trim and a couple of shrubs and, oh yeah, a garage. Big selling point--not! Still, this is one of the nicer abandoned homes in the neighborhood, so I'm hoping that some caring neighbor-to-be makes the bank a nice, normal offer and that the bank accepts.
Anyway, the records show that foreclosure was initiated against the owners exactly two years after they purchased the place. Two years. So it's not like they lived there for 20 years and someone lost their job or a divorce happened or anything like that. No, they just bought a house--
were given a loan for a house--that they couldn't afford.
The grass was super high until last Saturday, when some guy came along and mowed. Now there's big huge clumps of dead grass, which would make great compost. I've been thinking about going up and bagging up some of the grass--but then my kids remind me that that's pretty creepy.
Next is a personal favorite. I call it La Casa de Nada (The House of Nothing):

This lovely example of suburban living has exactly nothing growing around it except for the typical weedy mess known as a "lawn." (Which isn't so bad, really. Nice lawns screw up the Chesapeake Bay.) At least this lawn is mowed, courtesy of the bank that now owns the house.
Anyhow, sold in 1989 for $150,000, this house was sold again in 2002 for $250,000 and then, amazingly enough, was snapped up by a brainiac for $430,000 only three years later! Fast forward three years, and you have an empty house of nothing.
To fully appreciate how nada La Casa de Nada really is, here's a picture of the back:

You would think that in the three years between the time the dudes bought the house and the time they moved out, they would have planted a flower or a shrub or something. Maybe they couldn't afford shrubs. I've got an Endless Summer hydragea in my garden that cost a cool $40. So, okay, maybe plants were too dear.
The signs taped to the front and back doors say that the house has been "winterized" and that anti-freeze has been poured into the toilets and down the sinks.
This house is literally in my back yard--on the next street over. I've been looking at it on my walks, thinking about that sunny yard and how nicely flowers of all kinds would grow there. The other houses on the street have fabulous gardens, so the neighbors would celebrate IAmRightHere Day every year if I bought it, fixed it up and then sold it for a decent price to a nice family that took care of it. From just a glance around the perimeter, it needs a new roof, new windows, siding to go over the old asbestos stuff, a new kitchen, etc., etc. Someone paid $430,000 for this dump. Can you believe it?
Our last house is nestled between some cute homes on a quiet, shady street.

It was purchased in 2006 for $450,000, ten times more than the previous owner paid for it in 1974. The seller must have laughed all the way to the bank.
It's not a bad house, so don't let the 2-foot-high lawn fool you. The holiday wreath on the door gives away how long the house has been vacant. Still, a 1,500-square-foot house for $450,000? This is the insanity of the housing boom, which has left a swath of destruction here. I mean, sure, some people can afford a $450,000 house. But everyone? Yet there they were, snapping up this house and that house, outbidding other prospective buyers, climbing over each other to cut their own throats. Yes, yes, I know that home ownership is the American Dream. But that's assuming that you can afford the house you're buying--which, by the way, is something that the banks should have been thinking about before they sold the entire country down a river of derivatives.
When we were buying our first place--a little 700-sq.-ft. fixer-upper--the sale almost didn't go through because a mistake on my credit report showed that I owed Sears $200 for a sewing machine I'd purchased a couple of years before then. I had to go to Sears, show them the cancelled check, and get them to fix the error. So if a $200 speck on my credit report was almost enough to dump our home purchase, how is it that people who 1) speak no English and 2) have no money and 3) are not expected to acquire a lot of money in the near future are handed almost a half-million dollars? People are stupid, yes I know. But the banks? The guys in suits with shiny shoes and business degrees? How stupid were they?