NewGeography.com blogs

The Department of Commerce released trade balance numbers for January this morning, reporting that the monthly deficit jumped to $46.3 billion, up from $40.3 billion in December. Economists had been projecting a deficit of $41.5 billion. The larger than expected number may lead some economists to “lower their estimates for economic growth in the January-March quarter based on the wider deficit.”

However, buried within the dark clouds is a silver lining. U.S. exports actually hit an all time high of $167.7 billion during the month, potentially showing signs of a strengthening economic recovery. This is up from $125.4 billion in January, 2009 and $144.7 billion in January, 2010. American exporters appear to be on a roll, and gaining momentum.

Exports of services also continues to be a point of trade strength for the nation. While year over year increases were smaller than those in overall exports (47.2 billion, up from 44.2 billion in January, 2010) the nation actually had one month trade surplus of $13.4 billion in services. This is up from past years, and is not an anomaly- the nation has marked a trade surplus in the services sector throughout the past two years.

The increase in the size of the deficit can largely be attributed to issues in two areas; petroleum and consumer goods. As oil prices continue to rise, the cost of oil imports have surged as well. In January alone, the nation imported 34.9 billion in petroleum products, leading to a deficit of $26.7 billion. This represents an increase of 21.5% over last January, and up 4.7% over the previous month.

The rise in the consumer goods deficit may actually be good news, of a sort. While the deficit itself is disconcerting, the detailed numbers show that imports of apparel, textiles, appliances, and other household related products are up notably. While increased imports in these sectors serve to worsen our trade balance with China (up to $23.3 billion in January, from $20.7 billion in December), increased demand for such retail goods could be a sign that the American economy, largely centered around consumer spending, is starting to catch some momentum again. According to economist Joseph LaVorgna, interviewed by CNN, while the deficit is wider, “the numbers actually imply a very healthy economy… The gain in imports was in every category. Domestic demand is still very firm and producers are rebuilding their inventories.”

The Hartford metropolitan area grew 5.5 percent between 2000 and 2010, according to new census data that has just been released. In 2000, the metropolitan area had 1,149,000 residents, a figure that rose to 1,221,000 in 2010.

The city of Hartford, the historical core municipality, grew from 124,100 (the 2000 base) to 124,800 over the period, for a growth rate of 0.5 percent. This small growth was a turnaround for Hartford, which had a peak population of 177,000 in 1950. Then, Hartford was the largest municipality in Connecticut, but has since been passed by both Bridgeport and New Haven. The city accounted for one percent of the metropolitan area's growth.

The suburbs grew at a rate of 6.2 percent and captured 99 percent of the metropolitan area's growth. Tolland County grew 12.0 percent, nearly double or more the population growth rates in the other two counties. Middlesex County grew 6.8 percent. The core county, Hartford (which includes the city of Hartford), grew the slowest, at 4.3 percent.

Just released census data indicates that the Pittsburgh metropolitan area declined in population from 2,431,000 in 2000 to 2,356,000 in 2010, a loss of 3.1 percent. The loss reflects a continuing trend of regional declines. The present geographical area of the Pittsburgh metropolitan area has a population below that of 1930 and has lost 400,000 residents (at percent) since 1960. No other major metropolitan area has experienced a loss since 1960 (including Katrina ravaged New Orleans).

Both the historical core municipality, the city of Pittsburgh and the suburbs declined. The suburbs experienced a loss of 2.2 percent, but accounted for 61 percent of the metropolitan area loss. All six suburban counties except Butler (5.6 percent) and more distant Washington (2.4 percent) experienced losses. The core county of Allegheny (which includes the city of Pittsburgh) lost 4.6 percent of its population and nearly 80 percent of the metropolitan area's numeric population loss.

The city of Pittsburgh continued its long decline, falling to 306,000 in 2010 from 335,000 in 2000, a loss of 8.6 percent. The city accounted for 39 percent of the metropolitan area population loss. Pittsburgh's population peaked in 1950 at 677,000 and has fallen 55 percent since that time. Its 2010 population is lower than in any previous census since 1880 (based upon the combined population of Pittsburgh and Allegheny, which subsequently consolidated).

The Columbus (Ohio) metropolitan area increased in population from 1,613,000 in 2000 to 1,837,000 in 2010 (13.9 percent). This growth rate is likely to have been among the strongest in the Midwest and is greater than the growth rate of Seattle, which had grown more quickly in recent decades.

The historical core municipality, the city of Columbus, which is largely suburban in form, grew from 713,000 to 787,000, an increase of 10.4 percent. The city of Columbus captured 33 percent of the metropolitan area's growth.

The suburbs experienced a growth rate of 16.7 percent and captured 67 percent of the metropolitan area growth. Suburban Delaware County had a population increase of 58 percent, while more distant counties, Union (28 percent) and Fairfield (19 percent) also experienced strong growth. The core county of Franklin, which includes the city of Columbus, grew nine percent.

The Cleveland metropolitan area population fell from 2,148,000 in 2000 to 2.077,000 in 2010, according to the just released 2010 census figures. All of the loss was attributable to the city of Cleveland. However, population growth in the suburbs was small.

The 2010 census data indicates that the city of Cleveland lost 16.9 percent of its population between 2000 and 2010, the largest loss yet reported by a historical core municipality (excluding Hurricane Katrina ravaged New Orleans). Cleveland dropped from 477,000 in 2000 to 397,000 in 2010. The city of Cleveland reached its population peak of 914,000 in 1950 and has since fallen 57 percent.

The suburbs added 10,000 residents, for a growth rate of 0.6 percent. This small gain was insufficient to offset the loss of 80,000 residents in the city of Cleveland and the metropolitan area suffered a population loss of 3.3 percent.

The core county of Cuyahoga (which includes the city of Cleveland) declined 114,000 residents, for a loss of 8.2 percent. All of the four suburban counties gained, with by far the largest gain (14 percent) in Medina County.

For the first time since the 1950 census, the city of Philadelphia has registered a gain in population. In 2010, the city had 1,526,000 residents, up 8,000 from the 1,518,000 in 2000. The city had reached its population peak of 2,071,000 in 1950 and even with the increase since 2000 remains below its population as recorded in the 1910 census. The city (the historical core municipality) accounted for three percent of the metropolitan area growth.

Overall, the Philadelphia (Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware and Maryland) metropolitan area grew 4.9 percent, from 5,687,000 t o 5,946,000 residents. While this is modest growth relative to the national rate of 10 percent, the Philadelphia metropolitan area grew faster than the Los Angeles metropolitan area (3.7 percent), which had outgrown Philadelphia in every census period during the 20th century.

The suburbs added 6.5 percent to their population and captured 97 percent of the population growth. Outer suburban Cecil County, Maryland grew the fastest, at 18 percent, while outer suburban Chester County added the most new residents (65,000) and grew 15 percent. Gloucester County, New Jersey also grew quickly, at 13 percent.

Just released 2010 Census data indicates that the city of Los Angeles and Los Angeles County experienced their smallest numeric population growth since the 1890 to 1900 census period.

The city of Los Angeles had been expected to top 4,000,000 population by 2010 and the California State Department of Finance had placed the population at nearly 4,100,000 as of January 1, 2010. In fact, however the census count for April 1, 2000 was 3,793,000, up 98,000 from 3,695,000 in 2000. This means that the State Department of Finance estimated four new residents for every one actual new resident between 2000 and 2010 (We had previously questioned the aggressive population projections released by the State Department of Finance in an Orange County Register op-ed,  60 Million Californians: Don't Bet on It). The lowest number of people added in a previous census period to the population of the city of Los Angeles was 52,000, between 1890 and 1900, with growth from 50,000 to 102,000.

Los Angeles County, by far the largest in the nation, was expected to top 10,000,000 residents by 2010, and the State Department of Finance had estimated a population of 10,441,000. In fact, the census count for Los Angeles County was 9,819,000, up 300,000 from 2000. According to Bureau of the Census estimates, Los Angeles County grew much more strongly early in the decade, achieving more than three-quarters of its decadal growth by 2003. After that, the population dropped at did not recover to above the 2003 level until 2008. The population growth rate came to a near halt as housing prices escalated during the housing bubble. The State Department of Finance population estimate placed the population increase between 2000 and 2010 at more than double that counted by the Census Bureau. The lowest number of people added in a previous census period to the population of Los Angeles County was 69,000, between 1890 and 1900, with growth from 101,000 to 170,000.

The other county in the Los Angeles metropolitan area, Orange, also experienced record low growth. Orange County grew from 2,846,000 to 3,010,000 residents, adding just 164,000 to its population. Not since the 1940 to 1950 period was growth so slow, when the population rose 75,000, from 131,000 to 216,000.

Overall, the Los Angeles metropolitan area grew a lethargic 3.7 percent from 2000 to 2010. This is the slowest growth rate among the 26 metropolitan areas for which data has been reported (with the exception of New Orleans, which lost population due to Hurricane Katina). By comparison, Los Angeles metropolitan area growth between 1990 and 2000 was 9.7 percent. Both slow growing St. Louis (4.2 percent) and Chicago (3.9 percent) grew faster than Los Angeles.

The historic core municipality of Los Angeles attracted 21 percent of the metropolitan area growth, while the suburbs attracted 79 percent of the growth. The suburbs grew 6.2 percent, while the city of Los Angeles grew 2.6 percent.

Population growth continued the strongest in the suburban areas of Riverside-San Bernardino, San Diego and Sacramento, while unusually strong growth occurred in the historical core municipalities, all of which are dominated by a suburban urban form.

Riverside-San Bernardino: Riverside-San Bernardino experienced by far the fastest growth of any metropolitan area in California, at 30 percent from 2000 to 2010. This growth rate placed the metropolitan area otherwise known locally as the "Inland Empire" fourth in growth rate among the 26 reporting major metropolitan areas, behind Raleigh, Las Vegas and Austin. The Riverside-San Bernardino metropolitan area grew from a population of 3,255,000 in 2000 to 4,225,000 in 2010. At the growth rates of the past decade, Riverside-San Bernardino would pass San Francisco, to become the state's second largest metropolitan area by 2012.

Riverside-San Bernardino is virtually an all suburban metropolitan area. The historical core municipality of San Bernardino grew 11.4 percent, from 188,000 in 2000 to 210,000 in 2010, capturing two percent of the metropolitan area growth. Suburban areas accounted for 98 percent of the growth.

San Diego: The San Diego metropolitan area grew 10 percent from 2000 to 2010, rising from 2,814,000 to 3,095,000. This growth rate was nearly double or more than that of the other major coastal metropolitan areas in California (Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Jose). Even so, the actual population count was approximately 130,000 below the California State Department of Finance estimate. We had previously questioned the aggressive population projections released by the State Department of Finance in an Orange County Register op-ed, 60 Million Californians: Don't Bet on It).

The historical core municipality grew 6.9 percent from 1,223,000 to 1,307,000 and, as in 2000 is the nation's eighth largest municipality (having been passed by San Antonio and having passed Dallas). The city of San Diego, with a largely suburban urban form, attracted 30 percent of the metropolitan area population growth. The California State Department of Finance estimate for the city was much higher, at 1,376,000, indicating an estimate of two new residents for every actual resident counted.

Sacramento: The Sacramento metropolitan area grew strongly between 2000 and 2010, at 19.6 percent. The population rose from 1,797,000 to 2,149,000, adding more new residents than the much larger combined metropolitan areas of San Francisco and San Jose.

The historical core municipality of Sacramento grew from 407,000 to 466,000 (a gain of 14.6 percent) and accounted for 17 percent of the metropolitan population growth. Suburban areas grew 21.1 percent and accounted for 83 percent of the metropolitan area growth.

New 2010 Census data indicates that the two major metropolitan areas in the San Francisco Bay Area, San Francisco and San Jose, have settled into a pattern of slow growth.

San Francisco: The San Francisco metropolitan area grew 5.1 percent between 2000 and 2010, a more than one-half drop from the 1990 to 2000 rate of 11.9 percent, from 4,124,000 to 4,335,000, for a gain of 211,000. Only in one decade (1970 to 1980) have the five counties of the metropolitan area gained at such a slow percentage rate.

The historical core municipalities of San Francisco and Oakland gained 20,000 residents, from 1,176,000 to 1,196,000. San Francisco reached a population of 805,000, up from 777,000 in 2000. As in the case of both the city of Los Angeles and Los Angeles County, the State Department of Finance estimate (857,000) was well above the Census Bureau population count (We had previously questioned the aggressive population projections released by the State Department of Finance in an Orange County Register op-ed,  60 Million Californians: Don't Bet on It). Even with this increase, however, the city of San Francisco remains below its population peak of 827,000, recorded in a 1945 special census, according to the Census Bureau.

The city of Oakland declined in population from 399,000 to 391,000. The historical core municipalities grew 1.7 percent, compared to the 6.5 percent growth rate of the suburbs. The historical core municipalities captured nine percent of the metropolitan area growth, with 91 percent of the growth going to the suburbs. The State Department of Finance estimate, at 430,000, was more than 10 percent above the actual Census Bureau count. The city of Oakland also reached its population peak of 401,000 in a 1945 special census.

While San Francisco remains the second largest metropolitan area in the state (after Los Angeles), this distinction could soon be lost. Riverside-San Bernardino registered a population of 4,225,000 and at growth rates of the last decade, would pass San Francisco by 2012.

San Jose: The San Jose metropolitan area grew 5.8 percent between 2000 and 2010, from 1,736,000 to 1,837,000. The historical core municipality of San Jose rose 5.0 percent, from 901,000 in 2000 to 946,000 in 2010. San Jose captured 44 percent of the metropolitan area growth, the highest figure among the reporting metropolitan areas except for the largely suburban historic municipality of Oklahoma City (47 percent). The State Department of Finance had estimated the city of San Jose population at 1,023,000 in 2010, indicating that its growth estimate for the decade was more than 2.5 times the increase indicated in the census count.

The suburbs of the San Jose metropolitan area grew 6.7 percent and accounted for 56 percent of the population growth.

In 1995, seeking to streamline mortgage processing, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and a group of banks came together to create a new company to register and assign mortgages. The company, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS), served as a way for mortgage originators to quickly process new mortgages, centralizing files and cutting down on the need to deal with local government record keepers. With banks increasingly focused on bundling, securitizing, and selling off mortgages they had originated, MERS was designed to move mortgages more rapidly off their hands and into the booming mortgage-backed securities market. The goal of the process, as stated by MERS, was to simplify “the way mortgage ownership and servicing rights are originated, sold and tracked” while also eliminating “the need to prepare and record assignments when trading residential and commercial mortgage loans.”

The business model proved wildly successful. According to the New York Times MERS now “claims to hold title to roughly half of all the home mortgages in the nation — an astonishing 60 million loans.” However, as the system boomed in an era of rampant mortgage speculation and securitization, criticism arose. Detractors, such as Professor Christopher L. Peterson of the University of Utah School of Law, argue that MERS is based on a “problematic legal doctrine,” and that by “adopting such a radical shift in how mortgages are recorded and foreclosed, without legislative change, the mortgage finance companies have rebuilt their industry on a legal foundation of sand.” According to Peterson,

“The shift away from recording loans in the name of actual mortgagees and assignees represents an important policy change that erodes not only the tax base of local governments, but also the usefulness of the public land title information infrastructure. MERS did not, by itself, cause the mortgage finance crisis and its ensuing aftermath. But it was an important cog in the machine that churned out the millions of unsuitable, poorly underwritten, and incompletely documented mortgages that were destined for foreclosure.”

As foreclosure rates have risen, so have legal challenges to the role of MERS in the process. Such cases have, among other issues, questioned the right of MERS to act as the “mortgagee of record,” and to initiate foreclosure proceedings. Results have been mixed. Judges in California, Massachusetts, and Kansas have ruled that MERS “has the authority to initiate home foreclosure proceedings.” MERS itself points to rulings in several other states that it claims show it stands on solid legal ground. However, courts in New York, Florida and Oregon have ruled otherwise, with multiple rulings in Oregon throwing a wrench into the foreclosure market in the state. MERS, in an apparent attempt to clear up issues of standing in foreclosure proceedings,recently began encouraging its members to stop making foreclosures in its name, and is now proposing new rules to curtail the practice.

Some local governments are also exploring potential legal and legislative investigatory proceedings against MERS, upset at the banking industry’s use of MERS to avoid paying local recording fees for mortgages. Given the dire state of state and local budgets, and the unpopularity of the financial industry, it bears watching to see if more local governments follow their lead in an attempt to recoup a source of funding that was previously theirs. MERS and its financial industry backers appear to be girding themselves for coming legislative battles, launching "an aggressive campaign on Capitol Hill to bolster the legality of the way companies have turned mortgages into securities." With housing markets already on shaky ground, and talk of a double dip in prices beginning to surface, the uncertain future of MERS and the mortgages it holds is yet more potentially bad news for areas struggling to recover from the housing bust.