Don’t get me wrong, the constriction of capital markets and a smaller appetite for risk have, taken together, been a hard pill to swallow. Originations among the 100 largest mortgage makers were down almost a whopping 25% in the first quarter of 2008 from a year earlier, a downward trend that is expected to continue throughout this year and 2009. The free-fall in mortgage volume and home sales is crippling the economy and has led to substantial job losses.

On the other hand, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association, a higher proportion of mortgages these days are now fixed-rate and prime. That's a good thing.

Ignore the crocodile tears shed by mortgage bankers and their advocates who claim that neighborhoods that have been historically redlined by banks will now lose out if they don't have access to subprime loans.

As someone who lives in a low-income, predominately black community, my response is: Don't do me any favors, because your largess is killing me. All of the hall mark exotic features of subprime loans – high fees; low documentation and no-down payment financing; adjustable interest rates for borrowers with no corresponding rise in income - don’t compensate for risk, but in fact generate it. They were designed to strip equity. Tragically, the so-called "ownership society" years of George Bush may actually witness a net decline in homeownership

Now is a perfect time for a serious behavioral correction in mortgage industry culture. Purge the noxious term “subprime” and the corrupted philosophy that drives it. Research shows that a high percentage of borrowers who received subprime mortgages could have qualified for lower interest, fixed rate loans. Researchers have also found that subprime lending was consistently targeted at communities of color, even those that can boast middle class income and relatively high credit score averages. So it’s time to admit that subprime loans were by definition discriminatory. When one quarter of subprime loans are either delinquent or in default, it's also time to admit that there is no inherent redeemable feature in that product line.

At the same, concluding that it was a mistake across the board to provide credit to those who have defaulted on their subprime loan is the wrong takeaway, and failing to serve neighborhoods with reasonably priced alternatives is an unacceptable cop out.

Credit Unions and community lenders have been proving for years that setting up shop in a low-income area or neighborhood of color does not have to equal high risk and defaults. I sit on the board of a credit union now that does brisk business in one of the poorest areas in the city, and uses fixed rates, relationship building, and sound underwriting to successfully make a variety of loans, including small business loans and mortgages. Banks and mortgage companies, backed up by community reinvestment government supports and incentives, and a strong secondary market, could learn from this.