I recently received a response from Star-Advertiser writer Andrew Gomes to my criticism of the newspaper’s reporting on Hawaii foreclosures. I’ve shared it in full below.

Ian, you made pretty harsh remarks in http://ilind.net/2012/04/12/star-advertiser-again-spins-its-reporting-on-island-foreclosures/.

I think if you look at all the stories that I’ve written since June 2011 after Act 48 was enacted in May 2011, you’ll see plenty of evidence and sourcing for the statement about the effect of Act 48. I summarized that with five paragraphs (see below) to support the “problematic law” wording and the notion that Act 48 created a drag on foreclosures in Hawaii.

I don’t think anyone at DCCA, the Judiciary, lender attorneys, FACE and borrower attorneys disputes this or takes issue with it like you have.

As for fourth-quarter to first-quarter comparisons, any good economist will tell you year-over-year avoids seasonal impacts.

I take offense at being accused of bias. What stake do I have in this?

Maybe you can find someone credible who says Act 48 had no impact on foreclosure filing volumes going down here, instead of holding up a PBN story as being better. You may note the PBN story is all of five paragraphs.

Andrew

here are the five grafs from my story:

Filings have ranged between about 300 and 600 per month since the foreclosure law overhaul took effect last May. By comparison, the total had generally been 900 to 1,600 per month in the two years before the Legislature changed the law.

That law, Act 48, reformed rules for nonjudicial foreclosures, which used to be how lenders handled the vast majority of Hawaii foreclosures because it was cheaper and quicker than going through the court.

Lawmakers tried to give qualified homeowner-occupants facing foreclosure the option of taking their case before a mediator as a way to curb what consumer advocates said were lender abuses.

But lenders sidestepped mediation by filing all new cases in court because they feared a provision in Act 48 could render nonjudicial foreclosure sales void if they made even the slightest mistake.

The added time, cost and other factors for pursuing foreclosure in court have depressed foreclosure filings, industry observers say.

I appreciate Andrew’s response, and I apologize for offending. My point, though, was not to disputing whether the amendment to Hawaii’s foreclosure law led to fewer foreclosures, although there are obvious questions raised by somewhat parallel drops in other parts of the country. The point I was trying to make is that the Star-Bulletin approach seems to be grounded in the idea that the drop in the number or rate of foreclosures is obviously a bad thing, something unfortunate that can be attributed to a “troubled” law. It’s a narrative that has been underscored by the S-A editorial line.