View PDF

The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.

Spotlight on the Housing Market in Cincinnati-Middletown, Ohio-Kent

U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development
U.S. Department of the Treasury

The Obama Administration's Efforts to Stabilize the Housing Market and Help American Homeowners
The	
  Cincinna9-­‐Middletown	
  OH-­‐KY-­‐IN	
  Metropolitan	
  Sta9s9cal	
  Area	
  (Cincinna9)	
  is	
  located	
  along	
  the	
  Ohio	
  River	
  and	
  includes	
  15	
  coun9es	
  in	
  3	
  sta
Cincinna9)	
  and	
  four	
  other	
  Ohio	
  coun9es;	
  six	
  coun9es	
  in	
  Kentucky;	
  and	
  three	
  coun9es	
  in	
  Indiana.	
  The	
  challenges	
  in	
  the	
  Cincinna9	
  housing	
  mark
of	
  the	
  na9on.	
  	
  The	
  foreclosure	
  crisis	
  in	
  Cincinna9,	
  as	
  in	
  other	
  parts	
  of	
  the	
  Midwest,	
  developed	
  much	
  earlier	
  than	
  in	
  other	
  parts	
  of	
  the	
  country.	
  
rose	
  above	
  the	
  na9onal	
  	
  average	
  -­‐	
  the	
  rise	
  in	
  distressed	
  mortgage	
  shares	
  did	
  not	
  begin	
  un9l	
  2007	
  in	
  most	
  other	
  regions.	
  	
  The	
  Cincinna9	
  MSA	
  di
bubble;	
  yet,	
  local	
  house	
  prices	
  have	
  fallen	
  below	
  their	
  2000	
  levels.	
  	
  Declining	
  property	
  values	
  	
  in	
  Cincinna9	
  were	
  fueled	
  in	
  part	
  by	
  excess	
  housin
crisis,	
  but	
  mainly	
  by	
  rising	
  defaults,	
  driven	
  first	
  by	
  unsustainable	
  mortgages	
  ,	
  then	
  by	
  the	
  economic	
  downturn	
  and	
  climbing	
  unemployment.	
  Eco
improve,	
  but	
  the	
  local	
  housing	
  market	
  remains	
  fragile	
  -­‐	
  with	
  high	
  concentra9ons	
  of	
  distressed	
  mortgages	
  (those	
  90	
  or	
  more	
  days	
  delinquent	
  or
and	
  nearly	
  25	
  percent	
  of	
  home	
  mortgages	
  underwater.	
  However,	
  the	
  Administra9on’s	
  broad	
  approach	
  to	
  stabilize	
  the	
  housing	
  market	
  has	
  bee
surrounding	
  ci9es.	
  This	
  addendum	
  to	
  the	
  Obama	
  Administra9on’s	
  Housing	
  Scorecard	
  provides	
  a	
  summary	
  of	
  trends	
  and	
  condi9ons	
  in	
  the	
  local
efforts	
  to	
  stabilize	
  the	
  housing	
  market	
  and	
  help	
  local	
  homeowners.	
  
	
  

Spotlight on the Housing

Market in Cincinnati-Middletown,
Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana
Population Growth, Employment, and Housing Market:

Spotlight on the Housing Market in Cincinnati-Middletown,

	
  
With	
  2.13	
  million	
  people	
  according	
  to	
  the	
  most	
  recent	
  Census,	
  the	
  Cincinna9	
  MSA	
  is	
  the	
  
27th	
  largest	
  in	
  the	
  na9on.	
  From	
  2000	
  to	
  2010,	
  popula9on	
  growth	
  was	
  slow,	
  increasing	
  
at	
  an	
  average	
  rate	
  of	
  just	
  0.6	
  percent	
  per	
  year.	
  Natural	
  popula9on	
  growth	
  (births	
  minus	
  
deaths)	
  accounted	
  for	
  nearly	
  all	
  of	
  that	
  increase,	
  as	
  an	
  average	
  of	
  only	
  350	
  more	
  people	
  
moved	
  into	
  the	
  Cincinna9	
  MSA	
  each	
  year	
  than	
  moved	
  out.	
  In	
  Hamilton	
  County,	
  the	
  
popula9on	
  declined	
  by	
  an	
  average	
  of	
  4,300	
  people,	
  or	
  0.5	
  percent,	
  annually.	
  	
  
	
  
Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana

Cincinnati	
  Housing	
  Unit	
  Growth	
  Outpaced	
  Pop
During	
  the	
  Past	
  De

Date	
  of	
  Census
Cincinnati	
  Population
	
  	
  	
  Annual	
  Growth	
  Rate	
  
Cincinnati	
  Households
	
  	
  	
  Annual	
  Growth	
  Rate	
  
Cincinnati	
  Housing	
  Units
	
  	
  	
  Annual	
  Growth	
  Rate	
  

4/1/00
2,009,66
-­‐
779,226
-­‐
833,067
-­‐

Source: Census Bureau (2000 and 2010 Decennial)
The Obama Administration's Efforts to Stabilize the Housing Market and Help American Homeowners - May 2012
inna9-­‐Middletown	
  OH-­‐KY-­‐IN	
  Metropolitan	
  Sta9s9cal	
  Area	
  (Cincinna9)	
  is	
  located	
  along	
  the	
  Ohio	
  River	
  and	
  includes	
  15	
  coun9es	
  in	
  3	
  states:	
  Hamilton	
  in	
  southwestern	
  Ohio	
  (includes	
  City	
  of	
  
U.S. Department of ndiana.	
  The	
  challenges	
  in	
  the	
  Cincinna9	
  h	
  ousing	
  market	
  h | een	
  more	
   evere	
  than	
  those	
  in	
  many	
  areas	
  
a9)	
  and	
  four	
  other	
  Ohio	
  coun9es;	
  six	
  coun9es	
  in	
  Kentucky;	
  and	
  three	
  coun9es	
  in	
  IHousing and Urban Development ave	
  bOffice sof Policy Development and Research
a9on.	
  	
  The	
  foreclosure	
  crisis	
  in	
  Cincinna9,	
  as	
  in	
  other	
  parts	
  of	
  the	
  Midwest,	
  developed	
  much	
  earlier	
  than	
  in	
  other	
  parts	
  of	
  tDuring	
  the	
  dAs	
  early	
  panned	
  bthe	
  share	
  of	
  distressed	
  mortgages	
  
he	
  country.	
   ecade	
  s as	
  2002,	
   y	
  the	
  Census,	
  new	
  housing	
  produc9on	
  exceeded	
  household	
  growth	
  in	
  the	
  Cincinna9	
  MSA;	
  net	
  annual	
  housing	
  uni
greater	
  than	
  t not	
  see	
  the	
  rapid	
   popula9on	
  a of	
   he	
  house	
  price	
  
ove	
  the	
  na9onal	
  	
  average	
  -­‐	
  the	
  rise	
  in	
  distressed	
  mortgage	
  shares	
  did	
  not	
  begin	
  un9l	
  2007	
  in	
  most	
  other	
  regions.	
  	
  The	
  Cincinna9	
  MSA	
  did	
  he	
  corresponding	
  apprecia9on	
  nd	
  thousehold	
  growth	
  rates	
  of	
  0.6	
  and	
  0.7	
  percent,	
  respec9vely.	
  This	
  excess	
  construc9on,	
  while	
  no
na9on,	
  nevertheless	
  contributed	
  tyears	
  prior	
  to	
  the	
  housing	
   and	
  may	
  have	
  led	
  to	
  steeper	
  price	
  declines	
  aher	
  2006.	
  According	
  to	
  the	
  Census	
  B
yet,	
  local	
  house	
  The Cincinnati-Middletown OH-KY-IN Metropolitanin	
  Cincinna9	
  wArea (Cincinnati) is located onstruc9on	
  in	
  Ohion	
  oversupply	
  oincludes 15 counties in 3 states: Hamilton in southwestern
prices	
  have	
  fallen	
  below	
  their	
  2000	
  levels.	
  	
  Declining	
  property	
  values	
  	
   Statistical ere	
  fueled	
  in	
  part	
  by	
  excess	
  housing	
  c along the the	
   o	
  a River and f	
  housing	
  
units	
  in	
  Cincinna9	
  increased	
  by	
  an	
  average	
  of	
  3,300,	
  or	
  6.1	
  percent	
  annually	
  during	
  the	
  2000s,	
  higher	
  than	
  the	
  na9onal	
  rate	
  of	
  4.4	
  percent	
  duri
ut	
  mainly	
  by	
  rising	
  defaults,	
  driven	
  first	
  by	
  unsustainable	
  mortgages	
  ,	
  then	
  by	
  the	
  economic	
  downturn	
  and	
  climbing	
  unemployment.	
  Economic	
  condi9ons	
  in	
  Cincinna9	
  are	
  star9ng	
  to	
  
Ohio (includes City of 	
  with	
  high	
  concentra9ons	
  o distressed	
  mortgages	
  (those	
  90	
   r	
  more	
  days	
  doverbuilding	
  iin	
  fandothree etro	
  aumbers	
  of	
  vacant	
  y	
  iomes,	
   specula9on,	
  investor	
  h Cincinnati in	
  Cincinna9	
  represented	
  a	
  r
,	
  but	
  the	
  local	
  housing	
  market	
  remains	
  fragile	
  -­‐Cincinnati) and fourf	
  other Ohio counties; sixocounties in Kentucky; soreclosure),	
  large	
  nreas	
  win fIndiana. The challenges in theome	
  purchases	
  housing market haveela9vely	
  sma
elinquent	
  or	
   n	
   ome	
   ther	
  m counties as	
   ueled	
  b h nvestor	
  
years	
  
rly	
  25	
  percent	
  of	
  home	
  mortgages	
  underwater.	
  However,	
  the	
  Administra9on’s	
  broad	
  approach	
  to	
  stabilize	
  the	
  housing	
  market	
  has	
  been	
  ia	
  real	
  help	
  to	
  homeowners	
  in	
  Cof the Midwest, significantly	
  in	
  tmuch earlier than inme,	
  as	
  data	
  prepared	
  by	
  the	
  Cinc
nd	
  
been more severe than those in many areas of the nation. The foreclosure crisis in leading	
   nto	
  the	
  as inHother parts incinna9	
  ian	
  i1995	
  to	
  15,969	
  in	
  2005	
  and	
  that	
  one	
  in	
  MSA	
  in	
  even	
  9 ew	
  local	
  parts of in	
  2005	
  recei
Cincinnati, crisis.	
   owever,	
  subprime	
  lending	
   ncreased	
   developed he	
  Cincinna9	
  every	
  s that	
   n other borrowers	
  
number	
  ocal	
  economy	
  and	
  the	
  impact	
  of	
  the	
  Administra9on’s	
  
ding	
  ci9es.	
  This	
  addendum	
  to	
  the	
  Obama	
  Administra9on’s	
  Housing	
  Scorecard	
  provides	
  a	
  summary	
  of	
  trends	
  and	
  condi9ons	
  in	
  the	
  l of	
  subprime	
  mortgages	
  increased	
  from	
  5,836	
  
the country.nd	
  help	
  local	
  as 2002, the share of distressed mortgages rose above 	
  the national average - the rise in distressed mortgage shares did not begin until 2007 in most
As early homeowners.	
  
o	
  stabilize	
  the	
  housing	
  market	
  a

The Obama Administration’s Efforts to Stabilize the Housing Market and Help American Homeowners | May 2012

other regions. The Cincinnati MSA did not see the rapid appreciation of the house price bubble; yet, local house prices have fallen below their 2000 levels. Declining property
values in Cincinnati were fueled in part by excess housing construction in the years prior to the housing crisis, but mainly by rising defaults, driven first by unsustainable
mortgages, then by the economic downturn and climbing unemployment. Economic conditions in Cincinnati are starting to improve, but the local housing market remains
fragile - with high concentrations of distressed mortgages (those 90 or more days delinquent or in foreclosure), large numbers of vacant homes, and nearly 25 percent
	
  
A	
  m to stabilize recovery	
  is	
  underway	
  in	
   has been a real help had	
  expanded	
  by	
  an	
   verage	
  of	
  8,020	
  j and
ation Growth, Employment, and Housing Market:
of home mortgages underwater. However, the Administration’s broad approachodest	
  economic	
  the housing marketCincinna?.	
  The	
  local	
  economy	
  to homeownersain Cincinnatiobs	
  per	
  year	
  since	
  the	
  third
Cincinnati	
  Housing	
  Unit	
  Growth	
  Outpaced	
  Population	
  and	
  Household	
  Growth	
   ecent	
  recession:	
  during	
  the	
  two	
  year	
  period	
  beginning	
  the	
  first	
  quarter	
  of	
  2008,	
  the	
  region	
  averag
job	
  losses	
  were	
  significant	
  as	
  a	
  result	
  of	
  the	
  r
surrounding cities. This ensus,	
  the	
  Cincinna9	
  MSA	
  is	
  the	
   Administration’s Housing Scorecardas	
  made	
  modest	
  summaryyof trendswand conditions in jthealocalannually,	
  or	
  0.9	
  percent.	
  Timpact of thend	
  busine
addendum to the Obama
During	
  economy	
  hecade
the	
  Past	
  D provides a gains	
  in	
  the	
   ears	
  since,	
   ith	
  an	
  average	
  of	
  9,250	
   obs	
   dded	
   economy and the he	
  professional	
  a
3	
  million	
  people	
  according	
  to	
  the	
  most	
  recent	
  C
have	
  been	
  
gest	
  in	
  the	
  na9on.	
  From	
  2000	
  to	
  2010,	
  popula9on	
  growth	
  was	
  slow,	
  ihousing market and help local homeowners. the	
  major	
  contributors	
  to	
  job	
  growth	
  during	
  the	
  past	
  2	
  years,	
  increasing	
  jobs	
  by	
  a	
  combined	
  total	
  of	
  13,000	
  per	
  year.	
  Employment	
  d
Administration’s efforts to stabilize the ncreasing	
  
Date	
  of	
  Census
4/1/00
4/1/10
Cincinnati	
  Population
	
  	
  	
  Annual	
  Growth	
  Rate	
  
Cincinnati	
  Households
	
  	
  	
  Annual	
  Growth	
  Rate	
  
Cincinnati	
  Housing	
  Units
	
  	
  	
  Annual	
  Growth	
  Rate	
  

Population Growth, Employment, and
Housing Market:

same	
  period	
  by	
  an	
  average	
  of	
  2,000	
  jobs	
  lost	
  each	
  year.	
  The	
  na9onal	
  unemployment	
  rate	
  peaked	
  in	
  October	
  2009	
  at	
  10.0	
  and	
  fell	
  to	
  8.2	
  percen
2,009,664
2,130,151
has	
  followed	
  a	
  more	
  favorable	
  trend,	
  improving	
  from	
  a	
  high	
  of	
  10.0	
  in	
  March	
  2010	
  to	
  7.5	
  percent	
  in	
  April	
  2012.	
  	
  	
  
-­‐
0.6%
	
  
779,226
830,608
	
  
-­‐
833,067
-­‐

Source: Census Bureau (2000 and 2010 Decennial)

0.7%
917,396
1.0%

Job Market Conditions Improving for Cincinnati and Nation

Thousands	
  

With 2.13 million people according to the most recent Census, the Cincinnati
Quarterly	
  Nonfarm	
  Employment	
  
MSA is Census,	
  new	
  housing	
  p the nation. From 2000 growth	
  in	
  the	
  Cincinna9	
  M
he	
  decade	
  spanned	
  by	
  the	
  the 27th largest inroduc9on	
  exceeded	
  household	
  to 2010, population SA;	
  net	
  annual	
  housing	
  unit	
  growth	
  at	
  1.0	
  percent	
  was	
  
han	
  the	
  corresponding	
  popula9on	
  and	
  household	
  growth	
  rates	
  of	
  0.6	
  and	
  0.7	
  percent,	
  0.6 percent per year.
1,060	
  
growth was slow, increasing at an average rate of just respec9vely.	
  This	
  excess	
  construc9on,	
  while	
  not	
  as	
  great	
  as	
  in	
  some	
  parts	
  of	
  the	
  
nevertheless	
  contributed	
  to	
  an	
  oversupply	
  of	
  housing	
  and	
  may	
  have	
  led	
  to	
  steeper	
  price	
  declines	
  aher	
  2006.	
  According	
  to	
  the	
  Census	
  Bureau,	
  the	
  number	
  of	
  vacant	
  
Naturalapopulation growthp(birthsaminus during	
  the	
  accounted for nearly all ofate	
  of	
  4.4	
  percent	
  during	
  the	
  same	
  period.	
  While	
  
deaths) 2000s,	
  higher	
  than	
  the	
  na9onal	
  r that
1,040	
  
Cincinna9	
  increased	
  by	
  an	
   verage	
  of	
  3,300,	
  or	
  6.1	
   ercent	
   nnually	
  
ding	
  in	
  some	
  other	
  metro	
  areas	
  was	
  fueled	
  by	
  investor	
  specula9on,	
  investor	
  home	
  purchases	
  in	
  Cthe Cincinnati
increase, as an average of only 350 more people moved into incinna9	
  represented	
  a	
  rela9vely	
  small	
  share	
  of	
  total	
  purchases	
  in	
  the	
  
1,020	
  
ading	
  into	
  the	
  crisis.	
  However,	
  subprime	
  lending	
  increased	
  significantly	
  in	
  the	
  Cincinna9	
  MSA	
  in	
  that	
  9me,	
  as	
  data	
  prepared	
  by	
  the	
  Cincinna&	
  Enquirer	
  shows	
  that	
  the	
  
MSA increased	
  from	
  5,836	
  in	
  1995	
   out. In Hamilton County, the population ocal	
  borrowers	
  in	
  2005	
  received	
  a	
  subprime	
  loan.	
  
of	
  subprime	
  mortgages	
  each year than moved to	
  15,969	
  in	
  2005	
  and	
  that	
  one	
  in	
  every	
  seven	
  new	
  ldeclined
1,000	
  
by an average of 4,300 people, or 0.5 percent, annually.

140	
  

980	
  

960	
  

940	
  

Date of Census

4/1/2000

4/1/2010

128	
  

Cincinnati Population

2,009,664

2,130,151

126	
  

-

0.6%

779,226

134	
  
132	
  
130	
  

980	
  

4	
  

0.7%

Annual Growth Rate
Cincinnati Households
Annual Growth Rateand	
  Quarter	
  
Year	
  

Cincinnati Housing Units
Cincinna9	
  MSA	
  
Seasonally	
  Adjusted	
  Data	
  	
  
Annual Growth
Source:	
  Bureau	
  of	
  Labor	
  	
  Sta9s9cs	
  
	
  

6	
  

830,608

-

Millions	
  

134	
  

Cincinnati Housing Unit Growth Outpaced Population and 132	
  
130	
  
Household Growth During the Past Decade

833,067 (right	
  axis)	
   917,396
Na9on	
  

Rate

-

1.0%

124	
  

2	
  
0	
  

Cincinna9	
  MSA	
  
	
  

Seasonally	
  Adjusted	
  Data	
  
Source:	
  Bureau	
  of	
  Labor	
  Sta9s9cs	
  

Source: Census Bureau (2000 and 2010 Decennial)

Spotlight on Cincinnati MSA | Page 1

10	
  

136	
  

During the decade spanned by the Census, new housing production
960	
  
exceeded household growth in the Cincinnati MSA; net annual housing unit
940	
  
growth at 1.0 percent was greater than the corresponding population and
st	
  economic	
  recovery	
  is	
  underway	
  in	
  Cincinna?.	
  The	
  local	
  economy	
  had	
  expanded	
  by	
  an	
  average	
  of	
  8,020	
  jobs	
  per	
  year	
  since	
  the	
  third	
  quarter	
  of	
  2003,	
  represen9ng	
  a	
  0.8	
  percent	
  pace	
  of	
  growth.	
  	
  But	
  
household growth rates of 0.6 and 0.7 percent, respectively. This excess
es	
  were	
  significant	
  as	
  a	
  result	
  of	
  the	
  recent	
  recession:	
  during	
  the	
  two	
  year	
  period	
  beginning	
  the	
  first	
  quarter	
  of	
  2008,	
  the	
  region	
  averaged	
  35,900	
  jobs	
  lost,	
  or	
  a	
  3.4	
  percent	
  annual	
  decline.	
  The	
  local	
  
construction, ears	
  since,	
  with	
  an	
  average	
  of	
   some parts of nnually,	
  or	
  0.9	
  percent.	
  The	
  p
y	
  has	
  made	
  modest	
  gains	
  in	
  the	
  ywhile not as great as in 9,250	
  jobs	
  added	
  athe nation, neverthelessrofessional	
  and	
  business	
  services,	
  leisure	
  and	
  hospitality,	
  and	
  manufacturing	
  sectors	
  
Year	
  and	
  Quarter	
  
en	
  the	
  major	
  contributors	
  to	
  job	
  growth	
  during	
  the	
  past	
  2	
  years,	
  increasing	
  jobs	
  by	
  a	
  combined	
  tsteeper price year.	
  Employment	
  declines,	
  mainly	
  in	
  the	
  government,	
  offset	
  job	
  gains	
  during	
  this	
  
contributed to an oversupply of housing and may have led to otal	
  of	
  13,000	
  per	
  
riod	
  by	
  an	
  average	
  of	
  2,000	
  jobs	
  lost	
  each	
  year.	
  The	
  na9onal	
  unemployment	
  rate	
  peaked	
  in	
  October	
  2009	
  at	
  10.0	
  and	
  fell	
  to	
  8.2	
  percent	
  by	
  May	
  2012.	
  The	
  uCincinna9	
  MSA	
   rate	
  for	
  the	
  Cincinna9	
  MSA	
  
nemployment	
  
Na9on	
  (right	
  axis)	
  
declines after 2006. According to the Census Bureau, the number of
wed	
  a	
  more	
  favorable	
  trend,	
  improving	
  from	
  a	
  high	
  of	
  10.0	
  in	
  March	
  2010	
  to	
  7.5	
  percent	
  in	
  April	
  2012.	
  	
  	
   vacant
Seasonally	
  Adjusted	
  Data	
  	
  
Source:	
  Bureau	
  of	
  Labor	
  	
  Sta9s9cs	
  
units in Cincinnati increased by an average of 3,300, or 6.1 percent annually
	
  
during the 2000s, higher than the national rate of 4.4 percent during the same
period. While overbuilding in some other metro areas was fueled by investor
Unemployment Rate Remains High,
speculation, investor home purchases in Cincinnati represented a relatively
Job Market Conditions Improving for Cincinnati and Nation
But Shows Improvement
small share of total purchases inEthe years leading into the crisis. However,
Quarterly	
  Nonfarm	
   mployment	
  
Monthly	
  Unemployment	
  Rate	
  (Percent)	
  
subprime lending increased significantly in the Cincinnati MSA in that time, as
12	
  
	
  
060	
  
140	
  
data prepared by the Cincinnati Enquirer shows that the number of subprime
138	
   one
10	
  
mortgages increased from 5,836 in 1995 to 15,969 in 2005 and that
040	
  
136	
  
in every seven new local borrowers in 2005 received a subprime loan.
8	
  
020	
  

000	
  

12	
  

138	
  

Na9on	
  

128	
  
126	
  
124	
  

8	
  
Millions	
  

erage	
  rate	
  of	
  just	
  0.6	
  percent	
  per	
  year.	
  Natural	
  popula9on	
  growth	
  (births	
  minus	
  
accounted	
  for	
  nearly	
  all	
  of	
  that	
  increase,	
  as	
  an	
  average	
  of	
  only	
  350	
  more	
  people	
  
nto	
  the	
  Cincinna9	
  MSA	
  each	
  year	
  than	
  moved	
  out.	
  In	
  Hamilton	
  County,	
  the	
  
on	
  declined	
  by	
  an	
  average	
  of	
  4,300	
  people,	
  or	
  0.5	
  percent,	
  annually.	
  	
  

6	
  
4	
  
2	
  
0	
  

	
  

Seaso
Sourc

nal	
  pace	
  between	
  2000	
  and	
  mid-­‐2006.	
  From	
  their	
  peak	
  in	
  2006	
  to	
  the	
  end	
  
009,	
  home	
  prices	
  fell	
  by	
  18	
  percent	
  in	
  CincinnaO,	
  approximately	
  half	
  the	
  
e	
  of	
  31	
  percent.	
  	
  The	
  net	
  effect	
  for	
  CincinnaO	
  has	
  current	
  home	
  prices	
  
	
  2000,	
  compared	
  to	
  current	
  prices	
  of Housing at	
  the	
  bUrbanof	
  
U.S Department where	
  they	
  were	
   and eginning	
   Development
eat-­‐sales	
  HPI	
  that	
  excludes	
  distressed	
  sales	
  shows	
  that	
  CincinnaO	
  house	
  
3	
  levels	
  wU.S. tDepartmentales.	
  	
  the Treasury
ithout	
   hese	
  discounted	
  s of

35	
  

7,000	
  

30	
  

6,000	
  

25	
  

5,000	
  

20	
  

4,000	
  

15	
  

3,000	
  

	
  has	
  improved	
  since	
  2010.	
  Rental	
  vacancy	
  rates	
  in	
  CincinnaO	
  have	
  
e	
  naOon	
  since	
  the	
  la^er	
  part	
  of	
  2008.	
  According	
  to	
  Reis	
  Inc.,	
  the	
  overall	
  
	
  was	
  4.9	
  percent	
  in	
  the	
  first	
  quarter	
  of	
  2012,	
  down	
  from	
  6.4	
  percent	
  a	
  
e	
  in	
  the	
  naOonal	
  average	
  from	
  6.2	
  to	
  4.9	
  percent.	
  During	
  the	
  first	
  quarter	
  
ncreased	
  by	
  2	
  percent	
  from	
  a	
  year	
  ago	
  to	
  $732.	
  The	
  average	
  rent	
  
ent	
  to	
  $1,070	
  during	
  the	
  same	
  period.	
  	
  	
  	
  

10	
  

2,000	
  

5	
  

1,000	
  

0	
  

0	
  
2003	
  

2004	
  

2005	
  

2006	
  

2007	
  

2008	
  

NaOon:	
  ExisOng	
  Sales	
  (right	
  axis)	
  

2009	
  

2010	
  

2011	
  

NaOon:	
  New	
  Sales	
  (right	
  axis)	
  

CincinnaO	
   SA:	
   xisOng	
  	
  Sales	
  
CincinnaO	
  MSA:	
  
U.S. Department Efforts to Stabilize Development | Office and Help American and Research N May
The Obama Administration’sof Housing and Urban the Housing MarketMof EPolicy Development Homeownersew	
  |Sales	
   2012

Spotlight on the Housing Market in Cincinnati-Middletown, Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana
Spotlight on the Housing Market in Cincinnati-Middletown, Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana

main	
  t	
  low	
  levels.	
  	
  E	
  xisOng	
  home	
  sales	
  bbegan	
  	
  s	
  teep	
  ddecline	
  in	
  2006	
  but	
  
ain	
  a at	
  low	
  levels.	
   ExisOng	
  home	
  sales	
  egan	
  aa steep	
   ecline	
  in	
  2006	
  but	
  
me	
  sales	
  lso	
  fell	
  sA modest economicnd	
  hhave	
  onOnued	
  to	
  
sharply	
  from	
  2006	
  through	
  008	
  a recovery is underway in Cincinnati.
e	
  sales	
  a also	
  fell	
  harply	
  from	
  2006	
  through	
  22008	
  and	
   ave	
  c conOnued	
  to	
  
	
  bank-­‐owned	
  properOes	
  and	
  short	
  sales	
  remain	
   igh	
  aa 30	
  percent	
  of	
  
The local economy had expanded by
bank-­‐owned	
  properOes	
  and	
  short	
  sales	
  remain	
  hhigh	
  t	
  t	
  30	
  percent	
  of	
  an average of 8,020 jobs per
market	
  and	
  are	
  comparable	
  to	
  the	
  aOonal	
   ate	
  oof	
  29	
   ercent.	
  The	
  high	
  
aOonal	
  rate	
   f	
  29	
  
market	
  and	
  are	
  comparable	
  to	
  the	
  nnthird rquarterppercent.	
  The	
  high	
  
yeareep	
  discounts	
  –	
  
since the
of t2003, representing a 0.8 percent pace of
–	
  which	
  were	
  sold	
  t	
  t	
  eep	
  discounts	
  –	
  hhas	
  contributed	
  o	
  the	
  c conOnued	
  
to	
   he	
  
which	
   ere	
   Foreclosures:
a ad d
as	
  
encieswandsiold	
  ome	
  prices	
  But id-­‐2006,	
  contributed	
  stluggish	
  onOnued	
   a result of the recent recession:
p	
  to	
  the	
  eak	
  in	
  n	
  ome	
  prices	
  in	
  mid-­‐2006,	
  a	
  a	
  elaOvely	
  sluggish	
  eeconomy,	
  
peak	
   h h
growth. in	
  m job losses were significant as
to	
  the	
  p
r relaOvely	
  
conomy,	
  
ousing	
  supply,	
  and	
  distressed	
  ales	
  -­‐	
  -­‐	
  w bbegan	
  rising	
  earlier	
  than	
  i the	
  
using	
  supply,	
  and	
  ortgage	
  delinquency	
  hich	
  foreclosure	
  beginningn	
  he	
   first quarter of 2008, the
s two year period l arlier	
  As	
  of	
   n	
   arch	
  
during thesales	
   rates.	
   egan	
  
uggle	
  with	
  high	
  lmdistressed	
  aOonal	
  which	
  The	
   rising	
  eevels.	
  than	
  iMtthe
and	
  
ncreases	
  much	
   ower	
  than	
  n
repeat-­‐sales	
  
creases	
  much	
  lower	
  than	
  naOonal	
  rates.	
  The	
  CCoreLogic	
  epeat-­‐sales	
  
oreLogic	
   isk	
  
6	
  mise	
  in	
  home	
  prices	
  rianked	
  by	
  share	
  of	
  35,900MSA	
  wof	
  foreclosure	
  (90	
   percent annual decline.
etropolitan	
  areas	
   n	
  the	
  CincinnaO-­‐Middletown	
   ajobs as	
  
mortgages	
   t	
  rr lost, or a 3.4
he	
  r
region averaged
e	
  rise	
  in	
  home	
  prices	
  in	
  the	
  o	
  LPS	
  Applied	
  AnalyOcs.	
  LPS	
  data	
  also	
  show	
  that	
  
losure	
  process)	
  according	
  tCincinnaO-­‐Middletown	
  MSA	
  was	
  
nal	
  pace	
  
2000	
  
From	
  their	
  
the	
  
al	
  pace	
  b between	
  000	
   and	
  mid-­‐2006.	
  rom	
  has ppeak	
  in	
  2006	
  to	
  he	
  eend	
   in the years since, with an
The 1 m economy their	
   aeak	
  in	
  2modest gains
eclosure	
  ietween	
  2fb 5and	
  ercent	
  d in	
  CincinnaO,	
  made 006	
  to	
  talf	
  t nd	
  
ncreased	
   local id-­‐2006.	
  F
2009,	
  ome	
  prices	
  fell	
  y	
  y	
  .1	
  ppercent	
  iuring	
  the	
  past	
  year,	
  from	
  16,750	
  in	
  he	
  
home	
  prices	
   ell	
  by	
  8	
  8	
  percent	
   CincinnaO,	
  approximately	
  hh the	
  
pproximately	
  
09,	
  h
b 1
ompared	
  with	
   average ofor	
   f	
  n	
  .4	
  percent	
  dcurrent	
  home	
  prices	
  
naOonal	
   ffect	
  f 9,250 jobs added ame	
   alf	
  
2
e	
  o31	
  1	
  ercent.	
  	
  a	
  	
  he	
  net	
  effect	
  for	
  CCincinnaO	
  has	
  urrent	
  he	
  sannually, or 0.9 percent. The professional
f	
  3 p percent.	
   The	
  net	
  edecline	
  oincinnaO	
  has	
  c uring	
  thome	
  prices	
  
of	
  hat	
  t
T
w	
  2000,	
  he	
  rate	
  of	
  mortgages	
  at	
  risk	
  wf	
  foreclosure	
  in	
  CincinnaO	
  had	
  been	
  
t
	
  000,	
  compared	
  to	
  o	
  urrent	
  prices	
  wo here	
  hey	
  were	
  at	
  t	
  he	
  bbeginning	
  of	
  
compared	
  t c current	
  prices	
  
they	
   ere	
  a t the	
  
services,wleisure eginning	
  of	
  
fore	
  mid-­‐2008	
  band business here	
  t shows	
  that	
   and hospitality, and manufacturing sectors
ut	
  
I
eat-­‐sales	
   PI	
   hat	
  e excludes	
  istressed	
  sales	
  sthows	
  that	
   CincinnaO	
  n	
  ouse	
   rst	
  
PI	
  that	
   rose	
  less	
  sistressed	
  sales	
   he	
  foreclosure	
  crisis.	
  hh the	
  fi
d teeply	
  during	
  
at-­‐sales	
  HHwthere	
  lxcludes	
  ssociated	
  with	
  unaffordable	
  Coan	
  products,	
  
reclosures	
  
argely	
  ad
l incinnaO	
   ouse	
  
3	
  levels	
  without	
  thaveiscounted	
  ales.	
  	
   	
  
hese	
  iscounted	
  the major contributors to job growth during the past 2 years,
d been s sales.	
  
evels	
  without	
   incinnaO	
  
ore	
  slowly	
  in	
  Cthese	
  d -­‐	
  from	
  2.5	
  to	
  3.9	
  percent	
  	
  of	
  acOve	
  mortgages	
  during	
  
a combined total
r	
  hhe	
  inaOon	
  was	
  increasing jobs by rates	
  i2009,	
  foreclosures	
  of 13,000 per year. Employment
1.6	
   o	
  4.4	
  
	
   t as	
   mproved	
  since	
  t2010.	
  percent.	
  Beginning	
  in	
   n	
  CincinnaO	
  have	
   were	
  
has	
  improved	
  since	
  2010.	
  RRental	
  acancy	
  nemployment,	
  and	
  negaOve	
  equity	
  
ental	
   vacancy	
  
s	
   naOon	
  since	
  the	
  la^er	
  loss	
   of	
   ncome,	
  inates	
  in	
  o	
  incinnaO	
  have	
   offset
u r the t C
declines, v According	
  tgovernment,
e	
  and	
  were	
  triggered	
  by	
  part	
  of	
  i2008.	
  According	
  o	
  RReis	
  Inc.,	
  the	
  overall	
   job gains during this same
naOon	
   f	
  Chicago.	
  During	
  this	
  mainly share	
  of	
  severely	
  delinquent	
  
eserve	
  osince	
  the	
  lia^er	
  part	
  of	
  2008.	
  he	
  2012,	
  down	
  eis	
  Inc.,	
  the	
  overall	
  
Ome,	
  t of	
  
	
  was	
  4.9	
  percent	
   n	
  the	
  first	
  quarter	
  
from	
  
was	
  4.9	
  percent	
  iperiod byipping,	
  r2012,	
  down	
  from	
  66.4	
  pjobsalost each year. The national
an average that	
   .4	
  peverely	
   a	
  
2,000 ercent	
  
cent	
  ihe	
  naOonal	
  n	
  the	
  first	
  quarter	
  of	
   emains	
  at	
  of uring	
  the	
  ercent	
   	
  
e	
  in	
  t n	
  early	
  2010,	
  and	
  afier	
  d66.2	
  to	
  4.9	
  percent.	
  D level.	
  Sfifirst	
  quarter	
  
average	
  from	
  
in	
  the	
  n or	
  the	
  n verage	
   rom	
   at	
  7.9	
  percent	
  in	
   During	
  the	
  but	
  hquarter	
  
aOcally	
  faOonal	
  aaOon,	
  peaking	
  .2	
  to	
  4.9	
  to	
  $732.	
  early	
  2010,	
  October 2009 at 10.0 and fell to 8.2
unemployment t percent.	
  The	
  average	
  rst	
  
ncreased	
  y	
  y	
  	
  2	
  ercent	
  from	
  a	
  a	
  ear	
  ago	
  rate peaked in rent	
   ave	
  since	
  
b 2 p percent	
  from	
   y year	
  ago	
  o	
  $732.	
  The	
  average	
   rent	
  
creased	
  b
ent	
  to	
  1,070	
  during	
  the	
  same	
  period.	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  2012. The unemployment rate for the Cincinnati MSA
percent by May
t	
  to	
  $ $1,070	
  during	
  the	
  same	
  period.	
  
osure	
  compleOon	
  rate	
  since	
  April	
  2a more favorablepercent,	
  is	
  
has followed 009	
  in	
  CincinnaO,	
  at	
  1.9	
   trend, improving from a high of 10.0 in
0	
  percent.	
  Although	
  foreclosure	
  compleOons	
  have	
  been	
  on	
  the	
  decline	
  
re	
  compleOons	
  hMarch relaOvely	
  flat	
  in	
  CincinnaO	
  during	
  April 2012.
ave	
  been	
  2010 to 7.5 percent in the	
  same	
  Ome	
  
s	
  conOnue	
  to	
  affect	
  foreclosure	
  compleOons	
  locally	
  and	
  naOonally.	
  
ortgages	
  in	
  the	
  CincinnaO	
  MSA	
  are	
  currently	
  underwater	
  –	
  compared	
  to	
  23	
  
Home sales in the Cincinnati MSA remain at low levels.
onal	
  homeowners	
  and	
  loans	
  potenOally	
  at	
  risk.	
  	
  	
  

Existing home sales began a steep decline in 2006 but have leveled off
since 2008. New home sales also fell sharply from 2006 through 2008
and have continued a slow decline. Sales of bank-owned properties
encies and Foreclosures:
ncies and Foreclosures:sales remain high at 30 percent of existing home sales in the
and short
uggle	
  with	
  high	
  mortgage	
  delinquency	
  and	
  foreclosure	
  levels.	
  Awith arch	
  
s	
  of	
  Mthe
ggle	
  with	
  high	
  mCincinnati market and are in lines	
  of	
  March	
   national rate of 29 percent. The
ortgage	
  delinquency	
  and	
  foreclosure	
  levels.	
  A
6	
  metropolitan	
  areas	
  ranked	
  by	
  share	
  of	
  mortgages	
  at	
  risk	
  of	
  foreclosure	
  (90	
  
	
  metropolitan	
  areas	
  ranked	
  by	
  share	
  of	
  mortgages	
  at	
  risk	
  of	
  foreclosure	
  (90	
  
high proportion ofAdeeply PS	
  data	
  also	
  show	
  that	
  
discounted distressed sales has contributed to
losure	
  process)	
  according	
  to	
  LPS	
  Applied	
   nalyOcs.	
  L
osure	
  process)	
  according	
  to	
  LPS	
  Applied	
  AnalyOcs.	
  LPS	
  data	
  also	
  show	
  that	
  
eclosure	
  increased	
  by	
  5.1	
  percent	
  during	
  the	
  past	
  yin from	
  16,750	
  in	
  
the continued weakness ear,	
  rom	
  16,750	
  in	
  
closure	
  increased	
  by	
  5.1	
  percent	
  during	
  the	
  past	
  year,	
  home prices. A relatively sluggish economy,
f
ompared	
  with	
  a	
  naOonal	
  decline	
  of	
  2.4	
  percent	
  during	
  the	
  same	
  
mpared	
  with	
  a	
  nslow populationpgrowth, anhe	
  same	
   housing supply, and distressed
aOonal	
  decline	
  of	
  2.4	
   ercent	
  during	
  t excess
w	
  that	
  the	
  rate	
  of	
  mortgages	
  at	
  risk	
  of	
  foreclosure	
  in	
  CincinnaO	
  had	
  been	
  
hat	
  the	
  rate	
  of	
  mortgages	
  at	
  risk	
  of	
  foreclosure	
  in	
  CincinnaO	
  had	
  been	
  
efore	
  mid-­‐2008	
  bsales seen earlier thanfin the rest of Ithe nation kept Cincinnati home
ut	
  rose	
  less	
  steeply	
  during	
  the	
   oreclosure	
  crisis.	
   n	
  the	
  first	
  
ore	
  mid-­‐2008	
  but	
  rose	
  less	
  steeply	
  during	
  the	
  foreclosure	
  crisis.	
  In	
  the	
  first	
  
reclosures	
  where	
  largely	
  associated	
  with	
  unaffordable	
  loan	
  products,	
  
eclosures	
  where	
  price associated	
  with	
  unaffordable	
  loan	
  products,	
  
largely	
  
ore	
  slowly	
  in	
  CincinnaO	
  -­‐increases3much lower than national rates. The CoreLogic repeat	
  from	
  2.5	
  to	
   .9	
  percent	
  	
  of	
  acOve	
  mortgages	
  during	
  
re	
  slowly	
  in	
   n	
  the	
  Cincinnati	
   2.5	
  
	
  from	
  
pletion	
  Rates	
  CincinnaO	
  -­‐4.4	
  pMSA to	
  3.9	
  percent	
  	
  of	
  acOve	
  mortgages	
  during	
  
r	
  the	
  naOon	
  iwas	
  1.6	
  to	
   house price index2(HPI) shows that
ercent.	
  Beginning	
  in	
   009,	
  foreclosures	
  were	
  
the	
  naOon	
  was	
  1sales.4	
  percent.	
  Beginning	
  in	
  2009,	
  foreclosures	
  were	
   the rise in home prices in the
.6	
  to	
  4
s	
  and	
  were	
  triggered	
  by	
  loss	
  of	
  income,	
  unemployment,	
  and	
  negaOve	
  equity	
  
and	
  012 triggered	
  by	
  loss	
  of	
  income,	
  1,	
  2009 MSA nd	
  negaOve	
  equity	
  
were	
  
Cincinnati-Middletown severely	
  was approximately one-quarter the national
ter	
  2
Since	
  April	
   unemployment,	
  a delinquent	
  
eserve	
  of	
  Chicago.	
  During	
  this	
  Ome,	
  the	
  share	
  of	
  
erve	
  of	
  Chicago.	
  During	
  this	
  Ome,	
  the	
  share	
  of	
  severely	
  delinquent	
  
Foreclosure	
  
cent	
  in	
  early	
  2010,	
  and	
  aier	
  dipping,	
  remains	
  at	
  that	
  mid-2006. From their peak in 2006 to the end
level.	
  Severely	
  
Foreclosure	
   010,	
  and	
  aier	
  dipping,	
  r 2000 and
Foreclosure	
  Rate
nt	
  in	
  early	
  2Ratepace between emains	
  at	
  that	
  level.	
  Severely	
  
Completions
aOcally	
  for	
  the	
  naOon,	
  peaking	
  at	
  7.9	
  percent	
  in	
  early	
  2010,	
  but	
  have	
  since	
  
Ocally	
  for	
  the	
  naOon,	
  peaking	
  at	
  7.9	
  percent	
  in	
  early	
  2010,	
  but	
  have	
  since	
   home prices fell by 18 percent
of	
  	
  	
  the	
  	
  	
  house price bubble in March 2009,
0.1%
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  17,900	
  
1.9%
0.1%
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  2,693,300	
  
2.0%
in	
  	
  	
  Cincinnati, approximately half the national average peak-to-low
losure	
  compleOon	
  rate	
  since	
  April	
  2009	
  in	
  CincinnaO,	
  at	
  1.9	
  percent,	
  is	
  
ousing	
  Units;
sure	
  compleOon	
  rate	
  since	
  April	
  2009	
  in	
  CincinnaO,	
  at	
  1.9	
  percent,	
  is	
  
0	
  percent.	
  AApril	
  decline of 31 percent. The net effect for Cincinnati is that home prices are
osures	
  since	
   lthough	
  foreclosure	
  compleOons	
  have	
  been	
  on	
  the	
  decline	
  
2009
percent.	
  Although	
  foreclosure	
  compleOons	
  have	
  been	
  on	
  the	
  decline	
  
re	
  compleOons	
  have	
  been	
  relaOvely	
  flat	
  in	
  CincinnaO	
  during	
  the	
  same	
  Oof
now where they were at the beginning me	
  
e	
  compleOons	
  have	
  been	
  relaOvely	
  flat	
  in	
  CincinnaO	
  during	
  the	
  same	
  Ome	
   2000. Without distressed sales,
s	
  conOnue	
  to	
  affect	
  foreclosure	
  compleOons	
  locally	
  and	
  naOonally.	
  
conOnue	
  to	
  affect	
  foreclosure	
  chouse prices would be at much
ompleOons	
  locally	
  and	
  naOonally.	
  
ortgages	
  in	
  the	
  CCincinnati are	
  currently	
  underwater	
  –	
  compared	
  to	
  23	
   higher 2003 levels, as seen in
incinnaO	
  MSA	
  
rtgages	
  in	
  the	
  CincinnaO	
  MSA	
  are	
  currently	
  underwater	
  –	
  compared	
  to	
  23	
  
onal	
  homeowners	
  and	
  loans	
  home prices. 	
  	
  
potenOally	
  a risk.	
  
nationalpotenOally	
  at	
  t	
  isk.	
  	
  	
  
nal	
  homeowners	
  and	
  loans	
  
r
The Cincinnati rental housing market has improved since
2011. According to Reis Inc., the overall apartment vacancy rate in
Cincinnati was 4.9 percent in the first quarter of 2012, down from 6.4
percent a year earlier and similar to the decline in the national vacancy
rates from 6.2 to 4.9 percent. During the first quarter of 2012, average
rents in Cincinnati increased by 2 percent from a year ago to $732. The
average rent nationwide also increased by 2 percent to $1,070 during
the same period.

pletion	
  Rates	
  in	
  the	
  Cincinnati	
  MSA
etion	
  Rates	
  in	
  the	
  Cincinnati	
  MSA

Trends in Mortgage Delinquencies and
Foreclosures:

ter	
  2012
Since	
  April	
  1,	
  2009
er	
  2012
Since	
  April	
  1,	
  2009
Foreclosure	
  
Foreclosure	
  Rate
Foreclosure	
  Rate
Foreclosure	
  
Completions
oreclosure	
  Rate
Foreclosure	
  Rate
0.1%
	
  	
  	
  Completions
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  17,900	
  
1.9%
0.1%
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  2	
  17,900	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
	
  	
  ,693,300	
  
1.9%
0.1%
2.0%
Cincinnati homeowners continue to struggle with high mortgage
0.1%
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  2,693,300	
  
2.0%
ousing	
  Units;
using	
  U ince	
  
osures	
  snits; April	
  delinquency and foreclosure levels. As of March 2012, Cincinnati
2009
ures	
  since	
  April	
  2009

placed
111th out of 366 metropolitan areas ranked by share of mortgages
at risk of foreclosure (90 or more days delinquent or in the foreclosure
process) according to LPS Applied Analytics. LPS data also show that
Cincinnati area mortgages at risk of foreclosure increased by 5.1
percent during the past year, from 16,750 in March 2011 to 17,600
in March 2012, compared with a national decline of 2.4 percent
during the same period. CoreLogic data since 2000 show that the rate
of mortgages at risk of foreclosure in Cincinnati had been consistently
higher than the nations’ before mid-2008, but rose less steeply during the

Sources:	
  CoreLogic,	
  HUD/Census	
  	
  Bureau,	
  and	
  NaOonal	
  AssociaOon	
  of	
  Realtors	
  

Cincinnati Home Prices Decline
New and Existing Not Experience Run Up of Housingto the Nation
Although Did Home Sales: Cincinnati Compared Bubble
New and Existing Home Sales: Cincinnati Compared to the Nation
Annual	
  Home	
  Sales	
   thousands)	
  
Repeat-­‐Sales	
  House	
  Price	
  Index	
  	
  (Jan	
  2000	
  	
  =	
  100)	
  
Annual	
  Home	
  Sales	
  ((thousands)	
  	
  

220	
  
50	
  
50	
  

10,000	
  
10,000	
  
9,000	
  
9,000	
  

45	
  
200	
  
45	
  
40	
  
40	
  
180	
  
35	
  
35	
  
160	
  
30	
  
30	
  
25	
  
140	
  
25	
  

8,000	
  
8,000	
  
7,000	
  
7,000	
  
6,000	
  
6,000	
  
5,000	
  
5,000	
  

20	
  
20	
  
120	
  
15	
  
15	
  
100	
  
10	
  
10	
  
80	
  5	
  
5	
  
0	
  
0	
  

4,000	
  
4,000	
  
3,000	
  
3,000	
  
2,000	
  
2,000	
  
1,000	
  
1,000	
  
2003	
  
2003	
  

2004	
  
2004	
  

2005	
  
2005	
  

2006	
  
2006	
  

2007	
  
2007	
  

2008	
  
2008	
  

NaOon:	
  ExisOng	
  Sales	
  (CincinnaO-­‐Middletown	
  MSA	
  
right	
  axis)	
  
NaOon:	
  ExisOng	
  Sales	
  (right	
  axis)	
  
CincinnaO	
   rea	
  H ExisOng	
  	
  Sales	
  
Source:	
  CoreLogic.	
  Metro	
  aMSA:	
  PI	
  
CincinnaO	
  MSA:	
  ExisOng	
  	
  Sales	
  
Sources:	
  CoreLogic,	
  HUD/Census	
  	
  Bureau,	
  and	
  NaOonal	
  AssociaOon	
  of	
  Realtors	
  
Sources:	
  CoreLogic,	
  HUD/Census	
  	
  Bureau,	
  and	
  NaOonal	
  AssociaOon	
  of	
  Realtors	
  

2009	
  
2009	
  

2010	
  
2010	
  

2011	
  
2011	
  

0	
  
0	
  

NaOon:	
  New	
  Sales	
  (right	
  axis)	
  
NaOon	
  
NaOon:	
  New	
  Sales	
  (right	
  axis)	
  
CincinnaO	
  MSA:	
  New	
  Sales	
  
CincinnaO	
  MSA:	
  New	
  Sales	
  

Distressed Mortgage SharesHomeAbove National Level in 2002;
Cincinnati Rose
Cincinnati Home Prices Decline
Peak Did Not Experience Prices Decline
Although and Current Shares Remain Below Nation
Run Up of Housing Bubble
Although Did Not Delinquent	
  (Percent	
  UpAofAHousing Bubble
Mortgages	
  90+	
  Days	
  Experience Run of	
   ll	
   cOve	
  Mortgages)	
  
Repeat-­‐Sales	
  House	
  Price	
   ndex	
   Jan	
  2000	
  = 100)	
  
Repeat-­‐Sales	
  House	
  Price	
  IIndex	
  	
  	
  ((Jan	
  2000	
  =	
  	
  100)	
  

9	
  
220	
  
220	
  
8	
  
200	
  
200	
  
7	
  

180	
  
6	
  
180	
  
160	
  
5	
  
160	
  
4	
  
140	
  
140	
  
3	
  
120	
  
120	
  
2	
  
100	
  
1	
  
100	
  
0	
  
80	
  
80	
  

Source:	
  CoreLogic	
  
Source:	
  CoreLogic.	
  Metro	
  area	
  HPI	
  
Source:	
  CoreLogic.	
  Metro	
  area	
  HPI	
  

9	
  
9	
  
9	
  
8	
   8	
  
8	
  
7	
  
7	
   7	
  
6	
  
6	
  
5	
  
5	
   6	
  
4	
  
4	
  
3	
   5	
  
3	
  
2	
  
2	
  
1	
   4	
  
1	
  
0	
  
0	
  

CincinnaO	
  MSA	
  
CincinnaO-­‐Middletown	
  MSA	
  
CincinnaO-­‐Middletown	
  MSA	
  

NaOon	
  
NaOon	
  
NaOon	
  

Rental Vacancy Shares Rose Above to the Nation
Distressed MortgageRates Trend Similar National Level in 2002;
Distressed Mortgage Shares Rose Aboveates	
  (Percent)	
  
Quarterly	
  Apartment	
  Rental	
  Vacancy	
  R National Level in 2002;
Peak and Current Shares Remain Below Nation
Peak and Current Shares Remain Below Nation
Mortgages	
  90+	
  Days	
  Delinquent	
  (Percent	
  of	
  All	
  AcOve	
  Mortgages)	
  
Mortgages	
  90+	
  Days	
  Delinquent	
  (Percent	
  of	
  All	
  AcOve	
  Mortgages)	
  

Year	
  and	
  Quarter	
  
Source:	
  Reis	
  Inc.	
  
Source:	
  CoreLogic	
  
Source:	
  CoreLogic	
  

CincinnaO	
  Metro	
  Area	
  
CincinnaO	
  MSA	
  
CincinnaO	
  MSA	
  

NaOon	
  
NaOon	
  
NaOon	
  

foreclosure crisis. In the first years of the crisis when single-family foreclosures where largely
Rental Vacancy Rates Trend Similar at the Nation
to
associated with unaffordable loan products, mortgages to the Nation
Rental Vacancy RatesRental	
  Vacancy	
  Rates	
  risk of foreclosure rose more
Quarterly	
  Apartment	
   Trend Similar
(Percent)	
  
slowly in Cincinnati - from 2.5 toA3.9 percent of acancy	
  Rmortgages during 2007 and 2008.
Quarterly	
   partment	
  Rental	
  V active ates	
  (Percent)	
  
The comparable rise for the nation was 1.6 to 4.4 percent. Beginning in 2009, foreclosures
9	
  
9	
  
were increasingly associated with prime loans and were triggered by loss of income,
8	
  
unemployment, and negative equity according to research by the Federal Reserve Bank of
8	
  
Chicago. During this time, the share of severely delinquent mortgages in Cincinnati rose
7	
  
7	
  
to 5.9 percent in early 2010, and after dipping, remains at that level. Severely delinquent
6	
  
6	
  
5	
  

5	
  
Spotlight on Cincinnati MSA | Page 2

metropolitan	
  areas	
  ranked	
  by	
  share	
  of	
  mortgages	
  at	
  risk	
  of	
  foreclosure	
  (90	
  
sure	
  process)	
  according	
  to	
  LPS	
  Applied	
  AnalyOcs.	
  LPS	
  data	
  also	
  show	
  that	
  
losure	
  increased	
  by	
  5.1	
  percent	
  during	
  the	
  past	
  year,	
  from	
  16,750	
  in	
  
mpared	
  with	
  a	
  naOonal	
  decline	
  of	
  2.4	
  percent	
  during	
  the	
  same	
  
U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development
hat	
  the	
  rate	
  of	
  mortgages	
  at	
  risk	
  of	
  foreclosure	
  in	
  CincinnaO	
  had	
  been	
  
U.S. Department of the Treasury
ore	
  mid-­‐2008	
  but	
  rose	
  less	
  steeply	
  during	
  the	
  foreclosure	
  crisis.	
  In	
  the	
  first	
  
eclosures	
  where	
  largely	
  associated	
  with	
  unaffordable	
  loan	
  products,	
  
re	
  slowly	
  in	
  CincinnaO	
  -­‐	
  from	
  2.5	
  to	
  3.9	
  percent	
  	
  of	
  acOve	
  mortgages	
  during	
  
he	
  naOon	
  was	
  1.6	
  to	
  4.4	
  percent.	
  Beginning	
  in	
  2009,	
  foreclosures	
  were	
  
and	
  were	
  triggered	
  by	
  loss	
  of	
  income,	
  unemployment,	
  and	
  negaOve	
  equity	
  
erve	
  of	
  Chicago.	
  During	
  this	
  Ome,	
  the	
  share	
  of	
  severely	
  delinquent	
  
nt	
  in	
  early	
  2010,	
  and	
  aier	
  dipping,	
  remains	
  at	
  that	
  level.	
  Severely	
  
cally	
  for	
  the	
  naOon,	
  peaking	
  at	
  7.9	
  percent	
  in	
  early	
  2010,	
  but	
  have	
  since	
  

180	
  
160	
  
140	
  
120	
  
100	
  
80	
  

CincinnaO-­‐Middletown	
  MSA	
  
NaOon	
  
U.S. Department Efforts to Stabilize Development | Office and Help American and Research
The Obama Administration’sof Housing and Urban the Housing Market of Policy Development Homeowners | May 2012

sure	
  compleOon	
  rate	
  since	
  April	
  2009	
  in	
  CincinnaO,	
  at	
  1.9	
  percent,	
  is	
  
percent.	
  Although	
  foreclosure	
  compleOons	
  have	
  been	
  on	
  the	
  decline	
  
	
  compleOons	
  have	
  been	
  relaOvely	
  flat	
  in	
  CincinnaO	
  during	
  the	
  same	
  Ome	
  
conOnue	
  to	
  affect	
  foreclosure	
  compleOons	
  locally	
  and	
  naOonally.	
  
tgages	
  in	
  the	
  CincinnaO	
  MSA	
  are	
  currently	
  underwater	
  –	
  compared	
  tin the Cincinnati MSA
Foreclosure Completion Rates o	
  23	
  
nal	
  homeowners	
  and	
  loans	
  potenOally	
  at	
  risk.	
  	
  	
  

First Quarter 2012

Area

Foreclosure
Completions

Cincinnati
MSA
Nation

r	
  2012

Distressed Mortgage Shares Rose Above National Level in 2002;
Peak and Current Shares Remain Below Nation

Since April 1, 2009

Foreclosure
Completions

Foreclosure
Rate

1,300

0.1%

17,900

1.9%

185,500

0.1%

2,693,300

Mortgages	
  90+	
  Days	
  Delinquent	
  (Percent	
  of	
  All	
  AcOve	
  Mortgages)	
  

9	
  

2.0%

8	
  
7	
  
6	
  
5	
  

Note: Foreclosure Rates as Percent of All Housing Units; Data through
March 2012 for Foreclosures since April 2009
Source: Realty Trac and Census Bureau

Spotlight on the Housing Market in Cincinnati-Middletown, Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana

4	
  
3	
  

The Administration’s Efforts to Stabilize the Cincinnati Housing Market:
2	
  

tion	
  Rates	
  in	
  the	
  Cincinnati	
  MSA

oreclosure	
  Rate

Foreclosure
Rate

Source:	
  CoreLogic.	
  Metro	
  area	
  HPI	
  

	
  

1	
  
mortgages rose more dramatically for the nation,	
  From	
  the	
  launch	
  of	
  the	
  AdministraEon’s	
  assistance	
  programs	
  in	
  April	
  2009	
  through	
  the	
  end	
  of	
  March	
  2012,	
  nearly	
  34,000	
  mortgage	
  assistance	
  intervenEons	
  have	
  been	
  
peaking at 7.9
0	
  
percentSince	
  April	
  1,	
  2010, but have since declined tooffered	
  to	
  homeowners	
  in	
  the	
  CincinnaE	
  metropolitan	
  area.	
  	
  Nearly	
  20,000	
  intervenEons	
  were	
  offered	
  through	
  the	
  Home	
  Affordable	
  ModificaEon	
  Program	
  (HAMP)	
  and	
  
in early 2009
6.6 percent.

the	
  Federal	
  Housing	
  AdministraEon	
  (FHA)	
  loss	
  miEgaEon	
  and	
  early	
  delinquency	
  intervenEon	
  programs.	
  	
  An	
  esEmated	
  addiEonal	
  14,000	
  proprietary	
  mortgage	
  
Foreclosure	
  
Foreclosure	
  Rate
modificaEons	
  have	
  been	
  offered	
  through	
  HOPE	
  Now	
  Alliance	
  servicers.	
  While	
  some	
  homeowners	
  may	
  have	
  received	
  help	
  from	
  more	
  than	
  one	
  program,	
  the	
  number	
  of	
  
Completions
Emes	
  assistance	
  has	
  been	
  offered	
  
Realty	
  	
  	
  Trac data indicate that the foreclosure completion rate since April in	
  the	
  Chicago	
  MSA	
  is	
  nearly	
  double	
  the	
  number	
  of	
  foreclosures	
  completed	
  during	
  this	
  period	
  (17,900).	
  	
  In	
  addiEon	
  to	
  offers	
  of	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   	
  	
  	
  17,900	
  
1.9%
CincinnaO	
  MSA	
  
NaOon	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   ,693,300	
  
2.0%
2009	
  2in Cincinnati, at 1.9 percent, is slightly less mortgage	
  aid	
  to	
  homeowners,	
  the	
  AdministraEon’s	
  Neighborhood	
  StabilizaEon	
  Program	
  (NSP)	
  and	
  Hardest	
  Hit	
  Fund	
  have	
  helped	
  to	
  stabilize	
  the	
  Chicago	
  housing	
  
than the national
market.	
  
Source:	
  CoreLogic	
  

0.1%
0.1%
using	
  Units;
rate
ures	
  since	
  April	
  2009

of 2.0 percent. Although foreclosure completions have been on
	
  	
  
the decline nationally over the past year, foreclosure completions have
been relatively flat in Cincinnati during the same time period; however,
lender process reviews continue to affect foreclosure completions locally
and nationally. CoreLogic reports that 25 percent of mortgages in the
Cincinnati MSA are currently underwater – compared to 23 percent
nationally - representing additional homeowners and loans potentially
at risk.

The Administration’s Efforts to
Stabilize the Cincinnati Housing
Market:

Mortgage Aid Extended More an 34,000 Times to
Mitigate Rising Foreclosures

Rental Vacancy Rates of	
  Aid	
  bSimilar to the Nation
CincinnaE	
  MSA:	
  CumulaEve	
  Offers	
  Trend y	
  Source	
  Compared	
  with	
  Foreclosure	
  
Quarterly	
  A	
  partment	
  Rental	
  Vacancy	
  Rates	
  (Percent)	
  
Since	
  April	
  1,	
  2009	
  	
  (Thousands)	
  
40	
  

9	
  

35	
  
30	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  Mortgage	
  Aid	
  Offers	
  in	
  CincinnaE	
  MSA	
  from	
  April	
  2009	
  through	
  March	
  2012:	
  34,000	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  Foreclosure	
  CompleEons	
  Over	
  Same	
  Period:	
  17,900	
  	
  

8	
  

25	
  
20	
  

7	
  

15	
  
10	
  

6	
  

5	
  
0	
  

5	
  
4	
  

FHA	
  Loss	
  MiEgaEon	
  
Hamp	
  ModificaEons	
  
EsEmated	
  Hope	
  Now	
  ModificaEons	
  
Foreclosure	
  CompleEons	
  
From the launch of the Administration’s assistance programs in April
2009 through the end of March 2012, nearly 34,000 mortgage
Note:	
  Data	
  on	
  HOPE	
  Now	
  proprietary	
  mortgage	
  modificaEons	
  and	
  Quarter	
  
re	
  not	
  available	
  at	
  the	
  metropolitan	
  area	
  level.	
  However,	
  HOPE	
  
Year	
  
Now	
  Alliance	
  reports	
  139,300	
  non-­‐HAMP	
  modificaEons	
  since	
  April	
  1,	
  2009	
  in	
  the	
  states	
  of	
  	
  OH,	
  KY,	
  and	
  IN	
  of	
  which	
  10	
  percent	
  
assistance interventions have been offered to homeowners in the
CincinnaO	
   incinnaE	
  M
NaOon	
  
are	
  esEmated	
  by	
  HUD	
  to	
  have	
  occurred	
  in	
  the	
  CMetro	
  Area	
  SA.	
  
Cincinnati metropolitan area. Nearly 20,000 interventions were
Sources:	
  Departments	
  of	
  HUD	
  and	
  Treasury,	
  HOPE	
  Now	
  Alliance,	
  and	
  Realty	
  Trac.	
  
Source:	
  Reis	
  Inc.	
  
	
  
offered through the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP)
and the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) loss mitigation and early
In addition to stabilizing neighborhoods and providing affordable housing, NSP funds have
delinquency intervention programs. An estimated additional 14,000
helped save jobs. Each home purchased, rehabilitated and sold through the NSP program is
proprietary mortgage modifications have been offered through HOPE
the result of the efforts of 35 to 50 local employees.
Now Alliance servicers. While some homeowners mayver	
  three	
  received Neighborhood	
  StabilizaJon	
  Program	
  has	
  invested	
  $7	
  billion	
  naEonwide	
  to	
  help	
  
Given	
  o have rounds,	
  the	
  
	
  
help from more than one program, the number oflocaliEes	
  assistance has and	
  community	
  development	
  c$52.7 million has obeen awarded to five•	
  The	
  City	
  of	
  Middletown	
  was	
  awarded	
  $2.1	
  million	
  under	
  NSP1.
times work	
  with	
  non-­‐profits	
  
Overall, a total of orporaEons	
  to	
  turn	
  tens	
   f	
  thousands	
  of	
  
NSP grantees in the Cincinnati
abandoned	
  and	
  foreclosed	
  homes	
  that	
  lower	
  property	
  values	
  into	
  homeownership	
  opportuniEes	
  and	
  	
  the	
  
blighted	
  properEes	
  and	
  t
roperEes	
  t
been offered in the Cincinnati MSA is nearly double the number of that	
  communiEes	
  need.	
  	
   cities of Cincinnati and Middletown, OH; the counties has	
  Hamiltono	
  rehabilitate	
  pith	
  nearly	
  3hat	
  avre	
  funcEo
MSA: the
and Butler,
affordable	
  rental	
  housing	
  
The	
  city	
   of a	
  large	
  vacancy	
  problem,	
  w OH; 000	
   acant	
  ho
	
  
eliminates	
  their	
  destabilizing	
  effect	
  on	
  neighborhoods.	
  The	
  NSP1	
  
foreclosures completed during this period (17,900). In addition to offers
and one consortium, the Cincinnati-Hamilton County Consortium, led by Hamilton County
NSP1	
   unds	
  were	
  
overnments	
  on	
   ormula	
  b
rehabilitate,	
  and	
  sell	
  properEes	
  that	
  w
of mortgage aid to homeowners, the Administration’stfhe	
  Housing	
  granted	
  to	
  all	
  sRecovery	
  Aelected	
  local	
  2gas membersaa	
  the Cityasis	
  uCincinnati, ,	
  Title	
  
Neighborhood tates	
  and	
  sct	
  (HERA)	
  of	
   008;	
  NSP2	
  funds	
   futhorized	
  uof nder	
  Division	
  B the Cincinnati Metropolitan Housing ere	
  deterioraEng,	
  vandaliz
and including
III	
  of	
  
and	
  Economic	
  
nder	
  the	
  American	
  
income	
  families.	
  	
  
Recovery	
  and	
  Reinvestment	
  Act	
  (the	
  Recovery	
  Act)	
  of	
  2009	
  provided	
  grants	
  to	
  states,	
  Support Corporation (LISC), and the Model Group. The
	
  
Stabilization Program (NSP) and Hardest Hit Fund have helped to
Authority (CMHA), Local Initiatives local	
  governments,	
  
nonprofits	
  and	
  a	
  consorEum	
  of	
  nonprofit	
  enEEes	
  on	
  a	
  compeEEve	
  basis;	
  and	
  NSP3	
  funds	
  authorized	
  under	
  the	
  
•	
  The	
  CincinnaJ-­‐Hamilton	
  County	
  ConsorJum	
  has	
  targeted	
  NSP2
stabilize the Cincinnati housing market.
four government jurisdictions received a total of $22.7 million in NSP1 fundsunemployment,	
  and	
  a	
  weak	
  housing	
  mar
Dodd–Frank	
  Wall	
  Street	
  Reform	
  and	
  Consumer	
  ProtecEon	
  Act	
  of	
  2010	
  provided	
  neighborhood	
  stabilizaEon	
  
populaEon	
  growth,	
  high	
   and $6.0
grants	
  to	
  all	
  states	
  and	
  select	
  governments	
  on	
  a	
  formula	
  basis.	
  
million in NSP3 funds, and the consortium received a total vacancy.	
  The	
  fmillion ineen	
  used	
  ffunds.cquisiEon,	
  demoliEo
of $24.1 unds	
  have	
  b NSP2 or	
  the	
  a
	
  
owner-­‐occupied	
  units	
  across	
  seven	
  communiEes.	
  One	
  example	
  o
Given over three rounds, the Neighborhood Stabilization
Approximately 513 households have already benefited rehabilitaEon	
  of	
  t activities landmark	
   by
In	
  addiEon	
  to	
  stabilizing	
  neighborhoods	
  and	
  providing	
  affordable	
  housing,	
  NSP	
  funds	
  have	
  helped	
  save	
  jobs.	
  Each	
   from NSP, andhe	
  Elberon,	
  a	
  funded apartment	
  building	
  in	
  C
Program has invested $7 billion nationwide to help purchased,	
  rehabilitated	
  and	
  sold	
  through	
  the	
  NSP	
  program	
  is	
  the	
  result	
  of	
  the	
  efforts	
  of	
  35	
  to	
  50	
  lto an additional 920the	
  East	
  Price	
  Hill	
  community.	
  Ajer	
  years	
  of	
  negle
home	
   localities work
prominence	
  in	
   owner-occupied and
the program are expected to provide assistance ocal	
  
employees.	
  
in	
  foreclosure.	
  In	
  partnership	
  with	
  the	
  local	
  non-­‐profit	
  Price	
  Hill,	
  t
with non-profits and community development corporations 	
  to turn tens
renter households. Examples of how these funds have been put to use are iprovided below. to	
  redesign	
  the	
  h
	
  
conjuncEon	
  with	
  low	
   ncome	
  housing	
  tax	
  credits	
  
of thousands of abandoned and foreclosed homes that a	
  total	
  of	
  $52.7	
  million	
  has	
  been	
  awarded	
  to	
  five	
  NSP	
  grantees	
  in	
  the	
  CinncinaE	
  MSA:	
  	
  the	
  ciEes	
  of	
  
Overall,	
  lower property
affordable	
  senior	
  housing.	
  In	
  another	
  ConsorEum	
  development,	
  k
ounEes	
  of	
  Hamilton	
  and	
  Butler,	
  OH;	
  and	
  one	
  consorEum,	
  the	
  CincinnaE-­‐
struggling	
  community	
  
i
values into homeownership opportunities and the CincinnaE	
  and	
  Middletown,	
  OH;	
  the	
  c•
affordable rental
The City of Cincinnati and Hamilton County were awarded a was	
  transformed	
  dnto	
  a	
  desirable	
  neighbor
total of $10.5
Hamilton	
  County	
  ConsorEum,	
  led	
  by	
  Hamilton	
  County	
  and	
  including	
  as	
  members	
  the	
  City	
  of	
  CincinnaE,	
  the	
  
member,	
  Model	
  Group,	
  demolished	
  15	
   ilapidated	
  mulE-­‐family	
  b
housing that communities need.
CincinnaE	
  Metropolitan	
  Housing	
  Authority	
  (CMHA),	
  Local	
  INSP1 funds. CorporaEon	
  (LISC),	
  and	
  the	
  Model	
  
two	
  d targeted towards ten city and
million in niEaEves	
  Support	
   A portion of these funds has been etached	
  rental	
  conages	
  for	
  low	
  income	
  seniors,	
  thirty-­‐five	
  m
Group.	
  	
  The	
  four	
  government	
  jurisdicEons	
  received	
  a	
  total	
  of	
  $22.7	
  million	
  in	
  NSP1	
  funds	
  and	
  $6.0	
  million	
  in	
  
families,	
   nd	
   our	
  single-­‐family	
  u
a	
  t
C
15ocounty illion	
  in	
  NSP2	
  funds.	
  Approximately	
   13	
  statistically identifiedaasfHousing	
  Authority	
  nits	
  for	
  homeowners.	
  In	
  to	
  hird	
  b
neighborhoods which were households	
  
having the greatest
NSP3	
  funds,	
  and	
  the	
  consorEum	
  r
f	
  $24.1	
  m
Metropolitan	
  
CMHA)	
  
SP2	
  funds	
   use	
  
NSP1 funds were granted to all states and selected local governments NSP,	
  eceived	
  a	
  total	
  unded	
  by	
  the	
  program	
  are	
  expected	
  to	
  effect 5assistance	
  to	
  an	
   these communitiesn	
  through (three put	
  Nhe	
  Reserve	
  on	
  Sout
need. The funds have had the provide	
   stabilizing senior	
  living	
  facility	
  i Mt.	
  Healthy.	
  Known	
  as	
  t
of
have	
  already	
  benefited	
  from	
  
and	
  acEviEes	
  f
on a formula basis under Division B, Title III of the addiEonal	
  920	
  owner	
  and	
  renter	
  households.	
  	
  Examples	
  of	
  how	
  these	
  funds	
  have	
  been	
  put	
  to	
  use	
  are	
  provided	
   of propertiesor	
  residents	
  55	
  years	
  and	
  older	
  when	
  completed	
  in	
  2
Housing and
major activities: the purchase and redevelopment rental	
  units	
  f to increase affordable properEes	
  across
below.	
  	
  
affected	
  more	
  than	
  100	
  blighted	
  and	
  foreclosed	
  
Economic Recovery Act (HERA) of 2008; NSP2 funds authorized
homeownership, the creation of affordable rental housing, and hazard abatement and
	
  
	
  
under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the Recovery Act)
	
  	
  
•	
   have SP3,	
  the	
  City	
  of	
  CincinnaJ	
  621
demolition of blighted properties. In total, NSP1 funds Under	
  Naffected more than and	
  Hamilton	
  County	
  were	
  
	
  
and	
  county	
  are	
  using	
  a	
  part	
  of	
  these	
  funds	
  in	
  six	
  local	
  communiEe
of 2009 provided grants to states, local governments, nonprofits and a
blighted and foreclosed units across this region.
	
  
stabilizaEon	
  acEviEes	
  iniEated	
  under	
  NSP1	
  and	
  NSP2.	
  The	
  city	
  an
consortium of nonprofit entities on a competitive basis; and NSP3 funds
	
  
profit	
  development	
  organizaEons	
  in	
  this	
  endeavor.	
  	
  
	
  
	
  
authorized under the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
•
The City of Middletown was awarded $2.1 millionsing	
  NSP1	
  NSP1. The funds have is	
  also	
  working	
  w
	
  
•	
  U under and	
  NSP3	
  funds,	
  Hamilton	
  County	
  
Protection Act of 2010 provided neighborhood stabilization grants to
	
  
single-­‐family	
  homes	
  for	
  low	
  income	
  f
been used to demolish blighted properties and to rehabilitate properties that areamilies	
  in	
  targeted	
  commun
Cincinnati	
  MSA	
  NSP	
  Activity	
  (Housing	
  Units)
Projected
Completed
homeowners	
  volunteer	
  their	
  labor	
  in	
  renovaEng	
  the	
  homes,	
  allow
all states and select governments on a formula basis.otal
NSP1	
  T
654
477
functionally obsolete and visibly deteriorating. The city has aa reater	
  number	
  of	
  households.	
  	
  
benefit	
   	
  g large vacancy problem,
	
  	
  	
  Clearance	
  and	
  demolition
	
  	
  	
  Construction	
  of	
  new	
  housing
	
  	
  	
  Rehabilitation/reconstruction	
  of	
  residential	
  structures
NSP2	
  Total
	
  	
  	
  Clearance	
  and	
  demolition

513
15
126
127
19

Spotlight on Cincinnati MSA | Page 3

417
13
47
32
15

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development
U.S. Department of the Treasury

U.S. Department Efforts to Stabilize Development | Office and Help American and Research
The Obama Administration’sof Housing and Urban the Housing Market of Policy Development Homeowners | May 2012
with nearly 3,000 vacant housing units; removing blighted properties
eliminates their destabilizing effect on neighborhoods. The NSP1 funds
have also been used to purchase, rehabilitate, and sell properties that were
deteriorating, vandalized, and a source of frequent crime to low income
families.
•

•

•

The Cincinnati-Hamilton County Consortium has targeted NSP2
funds to areas where stagnant population growth, high unemployment, and
a weak housing market have led to high foreclosure and vacancy. The funds
have been used for the acquisition, demolition, and redevelopment of rental
and owner-occupied units across seven communities. One example of the
Consortium’s work is the rehabilitation of the Elberon, a landmark apartment
building in Cincinnati that had once held a place of prominence in the
East Price Hill community. After years of neglect, the building was blighted,
vacant and in foreclosure. In partnership with the local non-profit Price Hill,
the Consortium utilized NSP2 funds in conjunction with low income housing
tax credits to redesign the historic building into 37 units of affordable
senior housing. In another Consortium development, known as “Villas
of the Valley,” a struggling community was transformed into a desirable
neighborhood. In this project, the Consortium member, Model Group,
demolished 15 dilapidated multi-family buildings and replaced them with
42 detached rental cottages for low income seniors, 35 multi-family rental
units for low income families, and four single-family units for homeowners.
In a third Consortium project, the Cincinnati Metropolitan Housing Authority
(CMHA) put NSP2 funds to use by beginning construction on an affordable
senior living facility in Mt. Healthy. Known as the Reserve on South Martin,
the complex will include 60 rental units for residents 55 years and older
when completed in 2012. In total, the NSP2 funds have impacted more
than 100 blighted and foreclosed properties across the region.
Under NSP3, the City of Cincinnati and Hamilton County were
awarded a total of $4.6 million. The city and county are using a part of
these funds in six local communities to continue the implementation of the
stabilization activities initiated under NSP1 and NSP2. The city and county
are collaborating with local non-profit development organizations in this
endeavor.
Using NSP1 and NSP3 funds, Hamilton County is also working with
Habitat for Humanity to rehabilitate single-family homes for low income
families in targeted communities. As part of the program, the future
homeowners volunteer their labor in renovating the homes, allowing the
NSP development subsidy to benefit a greater number of households.

As part of the State of Ohio’s housing recovery efforts, the Restoring Stability:
A Save the Dream Ohio Initiative helps Ohio homeowners struggling to
make their monthly house payments or those who have already fallen behind on
their mortgage. Through the program, the Ohio Housing Finance Agency (OHFA)
is administering $570 million from the Administration’s Hardest Hit Fund to
help families avoid foreclosure.
The Restoring Stability programs include:
Rescue Payment Assistance: The Rescue Payment Assistance program
provides payments to mortgage servicers to help delinquent homeowners who
can demonstrate a financial hardship become current on their mortgages. The
payments can cover principal, interest, fees, delinquent taxes or escrow shortage
and homeowners insurance. Homeowners need to demonstrate the ability
to make future mortgage payments for at least six months. Rescue Payment
Assistance are structured as a zero-interest, deferred payment loan that is forgiven
over five years, or repaid from sales proceeds if the home is sold sooner.

Cincinnati MSA NSP Activity (Housing Units)
NSP1 Total
Clearance and demolition
Construction of new housing
Rehabilitation/reconstruction of residential structures
NSP2 Total
Clearance and demolition
Construction of new housing
Rehabilitation/reconstruction of residential structures

Projected Completed

654

477

513

417

15

13

126

47

127

32

19

15

4

1

104

16

139

4

Clearance and demolition

80

4

Rehabilitation/reconstruction of residential structures

59

0

NSP3 Total

Mortgage Payment Assistance: This program provides up to 15 months of
mortgage payments for unemployed and underemployed homeowners. Mortgage
Payment Assistance is structured as a zero-interest, deferred payment loan that
is forgiven over five years, or repaid if the home is sold or the loan is refinanced
sooner.
Mortgage Modification with Contribution Assistance: The program
provides a payment to mortgage servicers to reduce a participating homeowner’s
mortgage principal in connection with a modification. As a result of this assistance,
the homeowner should be able to qualify for a loan modification through the
Administration’s Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) or other
programs that can make the monthly mortgage payment more affordable. The
assistance provided by Restoring Stability is structured as a zero-interest, deferred
payment loan that is forgiven over five years, or repaid if the home is sold or the
loan is refinanced sooner.
Transitional Assistance: The Transitional Assistance program provides
homeowners who cannot sustain homeownership with an alternative to foreclosure
by offering an incentive to mortgage servicers to complete short sales or deedin-lieu of foreclosure agreements. Transitional Assistance allows homeowners
to exit their homes if they have exhausted all other options for maintaining
homeownership or if they need to relocate to gain meaningful employment. If
necessary, the plan may also make an incentive payment to a second lien holder
to release other liens on the property.
Lien Elimination Assistance: This program provides a payment to a
participating homeowner’s mortgage servicer and other lien holders to extinguish
existing liens. To qualify for Lien Elimination Assistance, the servicer must agree to
release the lien and the homeowner must demonstrate the ability to stay current
on any remaining liens attached to the property, property taxes and homeowner’s
insurance. The assistance provided by Restoring Stability is structured as a zerointerest, deferred payment loan that is forgiven over five years, or repaid if the
home is sold or the loan is refinanced sooner.
To date, over 150 mortgage servicers have agreed to participate in at least one of
the Restoring Stability programs. The programs make extensive use of local HUDapproved housing counseling agencies to help homeowners access the program
and apply for assistance. Ohio homeowners who believe they may be eligible
can visit www.savethedream.ohio.gov. Ohio has these funds available until 2017
(or until all funds are utilized to assist struggling homeowners) to prevent avoidable
foreclosures.

Spotlight on Cincinnati MSA | Page 4


Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, One Federal Reserve Bank Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63102