A Move Towards Socialism - Should the Government be Buying Stocks?
15 October 08 09:18 AM | realestatepolitics | with no comments
 
 
 
 
Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson at the conclusion of the G7 conference of the major industrialized nations announced that the U. S. Government is going to be buying stocks of financial institutions. Granted, these will be non-voting shares giving the government an equity ownership interest in these financial institutions.
 
Theoretically the government will not have the ability or power to run these corporations. But I don’t believe for one minute that an organization as large as our government will not have influence over these institutions. Here’s a scenario. The government wants the institution to do something and they balk at it. All the government has to do is to say that they’ll dump the stock if they don’t follow through!
 
This is already in addition to the $700B package in which we’re already buying distressed assets to remove them off the financial institutions books. That process makes the firms appear healthier and better able to resume what they are calling a ‘normal’ lending operation.
 
One question is, should the government be getting into the business of purchasing stocks in financial institutions? What does this overall mean to us? We’re already sometimes equated to second class citizens with lobbyists and big business winning out over us. Will this further mean that the financial well-being of these industry giants outweigh that of Joe Schmoe on the street?
 
This is all happening too fast and it’s being pushed down our throats. We’re being told that this needs to be done and also has to be done quickly. Yes, we’re supposed to believe that our legislators are looking out for our best interest, but we’ve seen enough of big businesses and lobbyists influence on them and the ensuing corruption. I apologize if I appear cynical – I’m just very concerned for us and our well being. Neither do I have the answer either!
 
The more I learn of these matters, I keep on having the concept of Socialism roaming around in my head. I know, that’s a scary situation in and of itself. Yes, we are far away from such, but doesn’t this concept push us more and more closer to it?
 
Would love to hear your thoughts.
 
See you next time at Marc’s Corner…..
Filed under: , , , , , , , ,
The Bail-Out – Who's Being Bailed Out & Who's Bailing Out!?!
07 October 08 09:55 AM | realestatepolitics | with no comments
 
 
 
 
So which is it? Last week, 10/1/08, the US Senate voted to approve a new version of the $700B Bail-Out bill for Wall Street. I’m not impressed. Yes, they would like you to think that this bail-out is for Main Street, but that is just simply not the case. If it were truly for Main Street, the people, then there would be more in the way of benefits for the consumers.
 
While the Senate’s bill is slightly better than the House’s proposal, it doesn’t do enough. As a Realtor®, I’m supposed to be thrilled and support this bill. I simply can’t do so in all honesty. While this bill might be helpful in the short term for us, there are long-term effects that need to be addressed and taken into account. I’m not going to go into those for the sake of this article.
 
This bill is a bail-out of Wall Street – of the lenders, of the investment houses! If it were for the people, then there would be more safeguards imposed and more consumer benefits. There are just not enough provisions for such in this bill. There are too many homeowners losing their homes, but the lobbyists work for big business not the small consumer. Of course, that’s what we thought our legislators are supposed to be doing, but maybe you should check and see who's financing their campaigns. (Campaign Contributions – Who’s in Whose Pocket?)
 
The main reason that the bill did not pass the House of Representatives the first time around is because too many of them are up for reelection and the public view of these bills has been somewhat negative. Probably for two reasons: 1) There is too much information to swallow in just a short period of time; and, 2) The American public is not as stupid as they would like you to believe.
 
No matter how you slice it, the trouble that we’ve gotten into is due to corporate greed. Yes, you’ll hear the argument that people made bad decisions. I won’t deny that many did, but on the other hand, many were given erroneous information and basically sold a bill of goods.
 
But Corporate American saw the income potential with risky subprime loans – it was like manna from heaven. But it wasn’t – it was pure and excessive greed! The American Heritage Dictionary definition of the word “greed” is “An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth.”
 
I think there is no doubt in anyone’s mind in regard to this. That’s why you are seeing an uproar to our bailing out Corporate America at the American taxpayer's expense. Now don’t get me wrong, I do believe that something needs to be done. We need to stop this cycle. We need to not put a bandage on the problem, but to find a solution to what ails us. And, yes, we need more regulation of our banking system, something that was systematically eliminated during the 80’s. Remember the Savings and Loan Debacle? Well, we’ve stepped into a major pile and it stinks!! But hey, let’s bail out corporate America!
 
And when you talk about deregulation, let’s not forget that our government allowed these financial conglomerates. There used to be laws separating savings and loans, investment banks, commercial banks and insurance, but these were torn down. Why did this occur? Oh let’s see – LOBBYISTS!?! Oh yes, and Corporate Greed!!
 
The arguments are vast in that this is the cure-all, but all we’re doing is subsidizing our financial institutions. Will this affect mortgages – probably not. But it will affect investors with the buying of mortgage baked securities. Oh geez, that really helps the family losing their home!
 
We need to help the people who are losing or have lost their primary residences. The financial institutions should be required to renegotiate mortgage terms instead of allowing them to just ‘voluntarily’ do so. $700B will go a longer way in helping consumers as opposed to the institutional giants.
 
We need to alter our bankruptcy laws allow judges to be able to alter loan terms. This is surely not something new, since they had this available to them pre-1978 when the laws were changed.
 
Yes, I know the argument in regard to why should all of these people that have paid their mortgages on time, etc. be responsible and pay for this? I’ll be honest, I don’t know the answer to that question. But something has to be done. The financial institutions will and should work this out as the housing market will do the same. Government is intervening in the wrong areas, as it unfortunately does all too often. But then again we have to go back to what I said earlier – looking at whose financing these campaigns.
 
We can’t just hope for a better system, we have to make sure that happens! We can’t be apathetic to what’s going on, otherwise you have no right to complain. It is up to us to work this out. It is up to us to make this a better place for future generations, because the legacy that we’re leaving them right now is not all that rosy.
 
See you next time around at Marc’s Corner!
Filed under: ,
Blight - Or Do As I Say and Not As I Do?
03 September 08 08:44 AM | realestatepolitics | with no comments

Campaign Election Signs vs. Open House Signs

Yes, this is somewhat of a rant. OK, I take that back, it is a rant – not somewhat! It appears that everywhere you turn there are political campaign signs popping up all over the place. These are a blight on our landscape. My senses are assaulted and I am forced to look at these everywhere I turn through election day.

As if that’s not bad enough, now you’re getting all of those pre-recorded messages telling you how great the politician is; what they’ve done; and, of course, the vote for me crap. Don’t you just love it! Yeah, I’m sure as much as a stick in the eye.

Many of the local municipalities here have cracked down majorly on roadside signage, especially for those of Open Houses. We have many that actually go around on the weekend and will pull Open House signs while you are trying to do one and then we wonder why no one or so few showed. Yet, our roadsides are littered with campaign signage. Why? Because our politicians, legislators, lawmakers, whatever you wish to call them preclude these from the laws. I guess that they feel this is their inalienable right. They must be better than you and me. Remember, they are serving the public’s interest – or are they really? It’s not like they don’t have enough privileges.

Yet, our signs get picked up and tossed away. There is one municipality that is at least working with us and is allowing us to put our Open House signage out from Friday through Sunday. It is only hoped that others will follow suit. Our local Realtor® Board has sent proposals to many cities, but with very little response. Yet, when election time comes around guess whose support they want?

I think the Do Not Call list is great. I detest getting these unwanted sales calls and do in fact file complaints on the DNC website at www.donotcall.gov. But again, our politicians thought they should be precluded from this. As a Realtor®, I can’t make calls to expired listings or FSBO’s without having a customer that is interested in their property. I can’t play the old game of Dialing for Dollars.

Yet, our trusted politicians thought well of themselves so much so that they excluded themselves from any Do Not Call rules and regulations. I guess that they felt that their campaigning is a public service that will only enhance my life. Not that it may be an intrusion of sorts at all.

It must be great to be a politician, because it appears that we continually find in all types of legislation, items that either are beneficial to them and/or their campaign contributors. It appears that even though we’ve elected them, we’ve become second class citizens. I resent that fact! How dare they? I don’t know how we get around this except for possibly keeping a more watchful eye on our politicians and when they stray, simply vote someone else into office. We really do need to send a message.

See you next time at Marc’s Corner!

Till next time – Marc It Sold!

Filed under: ,
The Housing Bill - A Panacea or False Hope
31 July 08 10:10 AM | realestatepolitics | with no comments
By Marc Grossman
 
OK, so President Bush signed what’s been commonly called the Housing Bill. It’s being touted as a panacea for our mortgage and housing market ills, but unfortunately comes nowhere near to being such. Again, I must restate from a previous post, The American Housing Rescue and Foreclosure Prevention Act, it should be called the Banker Bailout Bill. Forgive my cynicism, but numbers and figures are being touted and we, the taxpayers that are footing this bill, are going to be in for a major surprise in the long haul.
 
Before we go into that, I’ve read many articles and posts critical of the fact that First Time Homebuyers are being offered a tax credit as opposed to a tax deduction. The difference being that the credit will have to be paid back interest-free, mind you, over a 15 year period; while a deduction would basically just be a freebie. What I also think is good about this measure is that they, our leaders legislators, did not limit this to vacant homes as had been anticipated.
 
The fact that this loan has to be paid back is only fair because by doing otherwise you’re penalizing others who bought prior to this enactment or afterwards. Mind you this is only for first-time homebuyers, which includes those who haven’t owned a primary residence in 3 years, and the home has to have been bought between 4/9/08 and 7/1/09.
 
Anyway, will this stimulate the purchasing of homes? I think it will have little effect in that you still have to qualify for a loan with stiffer requirements and down payments.
 
One of the main concerns that I see with this bill is the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bailouts. Let me clarify, not the fact that they are being bailed out, but the basically unlimited funds that they are being given access to. All we’ve been hearing about is the estimated costs this bailout will be. But they are only talking in the short-term, there is no way to accurately estimate the costs over the long haul.
 
A good portion of this bill is aimed at those with at-risk mortgages at possibly having the ability to refinance at a fixed rate and that the new mortgage will be government backed by the FHA. Firstly, the lender has to be willing to go this route since it is totally voluntary. Some surely will in that they’d rather have their money than your property. But more than likely the mortgagee is not going to get such a great deal. Do you think that the lenders are going to go out of their way to give you, the borrower, a better deal? Seriously!
 
But on the other hand if they do go this route, it is most likely cheaper than going through a foreclosure. The other problem I see is that who’s to say that the borrower won’t go into foreclosure with the new mortgage. Again, more loses and costs to the taxpayers.
 
What really gets me is why is there a need for a federal database of personal data and fingerprints of anyone who basically has anything to do with the originating of a loan? Loan originators are licensed in Florida, where I’m located, and I gather most states in the union. This is just abhorrent in that it appears that the government wants more information on its citizens and they’re utilizing this fiasco to weasel their way to getting such.
 
To further the indignity, one part of the bill requires banks to report information on all debit and credit card transactions. Excuse me, but when did my spending habits become the government’s business? The more and more that I’ve learned about this bill, the more I kept on hearing George Orwell’s Big Brother in 1984 in my head. OK, so there are other things running around in my head as well – go figure!! I believe in rules and regulations, but this is just going too far.
 
Lastly, I want to leave you with this tidbit. It appears that a provision in the bill is to assist Chrysler (even though they aren’t mentioned directly) to benefit from a corporate tax incentive even though they are only a LLC, a partnership. Huh, and this has what to do with the topic? All I can say is good lobbyists and whoever else they have on the payroll or campaign donation list.
 
So what do you think? Is the Housing Bill a panacea, a fiasco or even somewhere in the middle?
 
See you next time at Marc’s Corner!
Campaign Contributions - Who's in Whose Pocket?
15 July 08 10:14 AM | realestatepolitics | with no comments
 
 
 
 
 
As was alluded to in a past post, I’d wanted to tackle this issue. We elect our legislators to work in our best interest. Yet, most of us would not think to look and see who’s financing their campaign. I think that the majority of us would like to think that in most cases ‘we the people’ are of paramount importance.
 
Didn’t our votes put you into office, Mr./Ms. Politician? Oh, that’s right your campaign is being funded by PAC’s (Political Action Committees), special interests, lobbyists, etc. Foolish us!
 
With that said, I came across an excellent website, OpenSecrets.org. It’s one of the best sites that I’ve seen. You can search by individuals, Congressional Committees, Congressional elections, Presidential election, even by Lobbyists and PAC’s and see whom they are contributing to.
 

 
Their Mission Statement is to Inform, Empower & Advocate –
  • Inform citizens about how money in politics affects their lives
  • Empower voters and activists by providing unbiased information
  • Advocate for a transparent and responsive government
So, instead of giving you facts and figures, check out their site. It’s definitely interesting and worth the time.
See you next time at Marc’s Corner.
Filed under: ,
"The Subprime Primer"
07 July 08 02:42 PM | realestatepolitics | 1 comment(s)
Here's one take on the subprime mortgage mess that we found a while back. It's a downloadable PDF.
 
Warning: contains strong language.
Filed under: ,
The American Housing Rescue and Foreclosure Prevention Act
03 July 08 09:10 AM | realestatepolitics | with no comments
 
 
 
 
 
Welcome back to Marc’s Corner –
 
As I’d mentioned in my previous post, we are going to discuss the American Housing Rescue and Foreclosure Prevention Act, which in some circles is know as the Bank and Builder Bailout Act. Hmmm, imagine that!
 
There are many aspects to this bill and for our purposes we will only touch on a few major ones and they’ll be discussed in no particular order. The supposed major gist of the bill is to help alleviate foreclosure to many homeowners. The numbers are pegged by the House at 400,000, but this is skeptical at best considering that this is a voluntary measure on behalf of the lenders.
 
How it would work is that the Mortgage Lender would have to agree to take a loss on the existing mortgage. They would have to reduce the loan balance to 85 percent of the home’s current value. A new mortgage would then be written at a lower interest rate and insured by the FHA (Federal Housing Administration). This is all considering that the homeowner will be able to afford this new loan.
 
Now, this may seem great for the homeowner and I’m all for keeping them in their homes. But, the lender in many cases could be able to recover more money than they would in a costly foreclosure. So here we are possibly helping the lenders who helped create this mess save some money and not penalize them more. Does anyone else have an issue with this concept?
 
One of the supposed purposes for this bill is to shore up housing prices because they have declined quite a bit in most of the country. This just cannot be the case. The market will correct itself as it has done so in the past. Pricing, as anyone who took Economics 101 knows, is matter of supply and demand. Governmental action can do nothing to change that unless it can reduce supply or increase demand. Just like the Economic Stimulus package could do little to infuse life into the economy.
 
Another aspect of the bill is to give a tax credit of up to $8,000 for first-time homebuyers who buy a vacant home in the next year. While this is good for our neighborhoods in that a vacant home will now be occupied, I think it creates a great inequity to the home seller who has taken care of their home and paid all of their bills on time. Why should they be made to suffer any more than necessary? The drop in prices, so-called short sales and foreclosures all around them are enough, they need not incur more hardship.
 
One other item in regard to these proposed tax credits. The bill itself creates a shortfall of over $2B, thus adding more to our deficit.
 
There are definitely some good things that are coming out of this and some ensuing bills. One is for the establishment of an independent regulator to oversee Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in addition to their overhaul as well as that of the FHA. It would also provide $4 billion in grants for states and municipalities for rehabilitating foreclosed properties to be used for affordable housing.
 
Now, this is not all for free to the rescued homeowner, and that is rightly so. They will have to pay a 1½% annual insurance premium and if the home’s value increased and they decided to sell or refinance, then they would have to share the profits with the government. This is a concept that was proposed by John Vogel, Jr, a professor at the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth, that I wrote about in the post, Foreclosure Plan – Is this a Panacea or a Step in the Right Direction?
 
While this bill may help some, it is not a cure all.
 
I would like to think that our legislators are doing this to help our fellow man and neighbors, but it’s more than likely not and that they are going this route to save their rear ends in an election year. Sad to say but true for too many of them. But then that’s a horse of another color.
 
See you next time at Marc’s Corner.


Marc It Sold!

Filed under: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Welcome to Marc's Corner!
30 June 08 12:57 PM | mrzabka | 2 comment(s)
 
Marc It Sold!

Thank you for stopping by and reading. My name is Marc Grossman & I was asked by the staff at Zolve, after they read a couple of my blog posts, if I would contribute to this site. I must admit that I was thrilled at the opportunity and humbled at the same time.

As you can deduce from the site title, we will be talking about real estate and politics and how they intertwine in our present state of affairs. I won’t deny that I am opinionated, but at the same time I am willing to see other viewpoints and give credit where it is due. With that said – Welcome to Marc’s Corner!

I was formulating what to write in my head and wanted to speak about the Mortgage Aid/Foreclosure Rescue Plan that made its way through the House and is now stalled in the Senate. But while thinking on all the aspects that are involved, it just appeared to be too convoluted to tackle correctly in one post.

Before we go any further, I need to make a couple of statements. First, I think it is a horrible thing for someone to have their home foreclosed upon. I have a major issue seeing someone who has worked hard and has been doing what they were told to do, to wind up losing their home and almost everything else with it. I am not a bleeding heart nor am I a sadistic bastard. Well I'm sure I know some people that may say differently.

But one of the main questions that has to come to mind – Is the government the answer to our present situation? I have an issue with that on many levels. You have to remember, when you think the government is the answer, than you are therefore saying 'we' are the answer. Because the long and short of it, is that it’s us who will ultimately foot the bill.

Here’s an example, we have a slight issue with that in the State of Florida with property insurance. Amongst all of the insurers, there is a company called Citizens, which is the state’s insurance co. Unfortunately, this company was grossly under funded to handle the catastrophes that have occurred in this state. Because of that, every insurance policy in this state pays surcharges to cover those loses. But that’s a story for another day.

There are several other questions that need to be asked in regard to the measures being proposed by Congress. Who is really getting bailed out? Is it the people that will be saved from foreclosure or is it really the lending institutions? This needs to be taken a step further as to who are some of the major proponents of this bill beholden to. We’ll look at some of these players and their campaign contributors. I think some of the things that we will unearth will surprise you.

Just a little history before we wind up for today. Lending institutions make their loans based on risk. The rate the consumer pays is based on their risk factor. You hear now about lending criteria being tightened. Well really all we are seeing is it going back to the way that it was before these lending institutions decided to ease their lending restrictions.

You may ask why did they do this? Well there were several reasons. There are two main ones that I see. Firstly, they needed to tap into a market to procure more loans and this they did by easing restrictions and making it almost as simple as signing your name to get a loan. Almost anyone could get a stated income no documentation loan. Secondly, they were playing the risk game themselves. They saw, as did so many, that real estate was appreciating at double digit rates in many areas.

I remember when we hit the height in 2005, we would see properties that were appraising for values never seen before. It was unbelievable. Now, it’s really amazing to me because these lending institutions have economists. They had to know that this market was not sustainable. Goodness gracious who in their right mind could have thought otherwise.

So this begs the question, why should these companies be saved from themselves? And on top of that, why should we, the working people, be the ones to use our hard earned money to save them?

Just a thought!

Anyway, again Welcome to Marc’s Corner and I’ll see you soon! 
Filed under:
Honestly?
26 June 08 04:43 PM | mrzabka | 4 comment(s)
A post I read today written by Teresa Boardman really got to me. Not the post itself, but the subject matter of the post – the point she was making. She was talking about trust – how real estate agents are painted in a negative light and are seen as difficult to trust. Indeed, we see this in many places like polls and articles and the like, the assumption that agents cannot be trusted because of how they are perceived.
 
I am not an agent. I have never been mistrusted or trusted as an agent. My field is real estate technology, so I know a lot about blogging and the media and the way the media works, and, unfortunately, the media seems to work against real estate professionals.
 
In a recent blog post by Marc Grossman, this point was brought into full focus as he showed us how agents are now highly recognized liars, apparently – at least by certain media outlets and polls – and Marc did a great job of defending this notion. Still, for whatever reason, real estate agents are playing against a stacked deck. And it is entirely undeserved.
 
Maybe I am preaching to the choir here, but this has been bugging me. I have had the opportunity to meet many agents, both face-to-face and online, and not one has struck me as dishonest, underhanded, sneaky, shady, roundabout, deceitful, corrupt, crooked, untrustworthy, or lying. The opposite is quite true: they have all been extremely affable, forthright, honorable, aboveboard, candid and trustworthy. Have I ever pursued a business relationship with any of them, in need of a home or property? No. Not yet, at least. But I really doubt these people, who are otherwise outgoing and pleasant easy to like, would suddenly turn into calculated crooks as soon as a business opportunity comes up. I am not naïve in saying this; rather, I am simply basing this on the notion that you can tell a lot about a person's true character when meeting them in casual environments like conferences or luncheons or social networks.
 
I'm not saying dishonest agents don't exist, because I think dishonesty unfortunately exists somewhere in any field or profession you can name. But do I think dishonesty is the norm in real estate? – No. Do I think the picture the media paints is justified? – No. Do I think somewhere along the line a handful of real estate agents took advantage of a person or a situation and began providing grounds for stereotypes, cliches, and unfair generalizations? Yes. But that's what they are – unfair and painted with a broad brush, one that unfortunately seems to blot out much of the trust and honesty freely available to the public courtesy of sincere agents.
 
-Christopher Zabka
Filed under:
An Inconvenient Truth about 1 Famous Green Home
23 June 08 09:00 AM | realestatepolitics | with no comments
A couple years ago, a story was written about current standards-bearer of the green movement, former Vice President Al Gore, questioning if he was practicing what he was preaching (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm).  The short version of the story was that Mr. Gore had yet to sign on to voluntary yet more expensive green energy programs from the local utility companies that would power his two stately homes in Arlington, VA & Nashville, TN. When asked about it, the Gore family acknowledged as much but said they were looking into switching...
 
OK, so that's old news and the Gores did make the switch.
 
This week a new story came out with a 2 years-later follow up and they revealed a rather inconvenient truth about expensive "energy-efficient" home upgrades.  According to the article: http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=764, Mr. Gore was embarrassed last year when it was revealed that his Nashville home was an energy guzzler, burning 20 times more energy than the average American home.  Yikes.
 
Mr. Gore reached into his pockets to the tune of $16,500 to "upgreen" his home to increase its energy efficiency and the renovations were recently completed.  The group responsible for the article, who apparently makes it their business to check the Gore family's energy bill each month, has since discovered a surprising fact.  Since the expensive energy-efficient upgrades, the home's energy usage has gone up by 10%!
 
 
There are two obvious conclusions to this sad tale.
  1. Former VP Al Gore cannot win for losing. First there was that whole episode when he won the popular vote but still lost the presidency and now this.
  2. There is a lot of hype around going green right now.  As there is with any hysteria, some things are going to be exaggerated and assumed until all the facts are settled.  The lesson we can take as real estate professionals is to make sure we provide professional counsel to our clients based on facts rather than hyperbole.  Just because a company calls its product "green," doesn't mean that it is.
 
Filed under: ,
The Flood Effect
19 June 08 01:02 PM | realestatepolitics | with no comments
To say the flooding of Midwest cities along the Mississippi has wrought significant damage is an understatment. Thousands of residents are displaced, thousands of homes are ruined. Levees are falling, rendered ineffective. Crops are ruined.
 
Dorrie and I were talking about this yesterday. "I feel lucky that we have jobs," she said. "I feel lucky that we have homes." The reality of her words hit me hard, and all I could say in reply was a meaningless "Yeah." Here I am, sitting in my office, blessed to have a great job and a habitable home, while the tragedy of the floods seemed distant and foreign. It's on the TV, and that's as close as it will get.
 
President Bush got close today. He visited Iowa City and Cedar Rapids. He met people. He listened. He said the government will help immediately to the extent that it can. And that's as close as he got.
 
Lashawn Baker was there, cleaning her flooded home in a southwest Cedar Rapids neighborhood. She was close. Close enough to be unimpressed by President Bush's visit.
 
"I really don't have much of an opinion of his coming," she told The Associated Press. "It took him a long time to get to New Orleans and he didn't help any of those people, so I don't think he's going to do anything to help Cedar Rapids now that he's here."
 
The American Red Cross is there, but it needs help, too. Its disaster relief fund is nearing empty, and they are in need of about $15 million to cover "the approximately 30 disasters that have occurred in the past two months," including the floods.
 
I have my own worries -- gas prices and student loans -- but why can't I help? Just because I'm not close doesn't mean I'm not capable. People are losing what's important to them, yet I have what's important to me and am still afraid to help. I don't understand.
 
How do you make sense of tragedy? How do you make it affect you when it doesn't affect you? It is sad for a while and then you go back to work, go back home, go back to the flood effect, of being submerged in your life.
 
One person can't do everything, and we each have our own responsibilities, our own problems, our own worries and fears. But people need help. They are facing extreme difficulty right now and they have lost much and I can't necessarily relate to that. But I am made of flesh and they are, too, and when I remember that, that our hearts beat together and our lungs take the same air with souls of one source, then I am closer. Close enough to see, close enough to help.
 
-Christopher Zabka
Filed under: ,
Memorial Day - Thinking of Brian Freeman
26 May 08 05:12 PM | mrzabka | with no comments

Memorial Day means much more to me today than it did before I went to Iraq.  Now I really do think of those who have died for causes beyond them.  That is the real spirit of the day: sacrifice for the common good.  Since soldiers do not get to choose what they fight for, we celebrate the sacrifice and do not judge the politics or specifics of the particular conflict.

This is what makes Memorial Day such universal holiday. Since we are observing the commitment & ultimate sacrifice that some Americans have made for reasons beyond their own, we can all respect and appreciate these two things together. 

This Memorial Day, I think of Brian Freeman.  Brian & I served in the same Civil Affairs battalion in Iraq when he was betrayed by the Iraqis who he was helping and killed.  We both were at West Point for 3 of the same years, we both went to Fort Carson, Colorado for our first duty assignment. We were both in the Cavalry and he replaced my roommate as platoon leader.  Brian spent his time off learning the bobsled & skeleton racing to take a shot at the Olympics... why not?  He was a talented guy.  He almost made it to the Olympics and had a great time doing it. 
We both left the military and entered into real estate. Brian was working in the acquisition & development department of a major California builder and I was a Realtor. In 2006, we were both called back into the army and trained together for Iraq.  We would talk at training about real estate and how we both intended to learn enough that we could eventually develop a small piece of land and see if it could work out and turn into bigger things.  He had the OJT and I know between the two of us, he could have really done it right.
 
He also had a child and a pregnant wife as we were getting ready to go.  It was a small blessing that he was able to spend some time with his daughter born right before we left.  Brian was one of those people that everyone liked and who was funny & witty without even appearing to try.  He was just good.

Brian & I met one time while in the mix of it. We met at a meeting in the plush Green Zone about agricultural programs that we could implement in our areas of responsibility.  He joked that he was a one man PRT (provincial reconstruction team) which was actually true.  They were spread really thin in his area South of Baghdad. 

The day Brian died, he was living with the local Iraqi authorities in his area of operations working with from before dawn to late at night every day to help them get their government working and solve problems from broken sewer systems, to how to hold a democratic meeting to dealing with corrupt police.  That day, their was an unusual breakdown of security at the compound.  Several men were able to drive in past security and enter the building armed without firing a shot. Brian was meeting with a local official when he was surprised by this assault force. 

After a short an unsuccessful defense, Brian and a few other soldiers were taken hostage in the back of an SUV.  The captors must have panicked by because they stopped and abandoned their vehicles.  Before doing so, they shot Brian and the other hostages in the head.  Brian was still alive when the army found the vehicles but could not make it to the hospital.   A good man and good father gone before his time. 

Brian, you are remembered this Memorial Day.  You sacrificed a great life for something bigger than yourself and that is about as good of a eulogy as a man could receive.
 
-Brian Wilson
Filed under: ,
The Buddy System?
26 February 08 12:18 PM | mrzabka | with no comments

A filmmaker in Canada has begun work on a new project called "House for Sale," which will highlight the proper precautions necessary for real estate agents to take to avoid and even escape the inherent dangers of the profession.

Robin Webb is well-known for his films about social safety, and he has made feature-length films and documentary miniseries alike. "House for Sale" will be a made-for-TV movie and will present what many agents have already called a controversial idea: "Don't show a house alone."

Webb formerly helped develop a safety program for the Fraser Valley Real Estate Board in the 1980s, so his interest in protecting real estate agents is long-running and genuine, so I personally wonder why real estate agents are not heeding his advice. According to this article from the Times Colonist, Webb said real estate agents were "sincere and genuine" as he presented this particular idea, but they ultimately said they wouldn't practice it.

I'm not a real estate agent; I don't have a license and I know more about online media and journalism than I do the ins and outs of real estate. I have been working with Brian Wilson since October 2007 and continue to learn much about the industry and its intricacies and nuances, but I don't think I need to be a real estate professional to understand the benefit of a buddy system when showing houses.

Why | risk | it?

You're alone. With someone you likely don't know very well. You're giving them the benefit of the doubt. But still.

Why would real estate agents object to this idea? Is it an issue of time (can't realistically have someone meet up with you for every appointment)? Money (can't afford to pay someone for their time - Webb even suggests using a taxi and having the driver wait outside)? Impracticality?

So I am asking you, the professionals: would you use a buddy system? Why or why not? Maybe you do already, or you know someone who does? Do they regret it?

Why is this idea controversial?

-Christopher Zabka

Filed under:
And the winner is...
19 February 08 08:35 AM | mrzabka | with no comments

Voting for "The Great Debates: Realtor.com: Friend or Foe?" is now closed. Our readers have determined that Russell Shaw of No Hassle Listing (69.6%) won this debate over Brian Wilson of Zolve (30.4%). Thank you to all who participated.

Stay tuned for information on our next Great Debate and more insight from Real Estate Politics.

- Christopher Zabka

Filed under: ,
Controversial blogging and Yossarian...sort of
15 February 08 09:07 AM | mrzabka | with no comments

We choose not to avoid any given issue because of its potential for controversy, agitation or even lack thereof; instead, we choose to establish Real Estate Politics for the civil, level-headed discussion of such issues for the sake of education and betterment for all.  - from The Real Estate Politics Manifesto

The above excerpt strictly pertains to our mission here on Real Estate Politics. We have created a platform via which discussing controversial topics is encouraged and, for that matter, welcomed.

But outside the context of this blog and a handful of others, controversial real estate blogging isn't necessarily widespread because most real estate blogging is meant to build business and help sell a product or service, ultimately. This can be a difficult thing because we all have our opinions, yes? And one of the things we hear pretty frequently is to be yourself on your blog; if people don't like who you are and what you have to say, you're no worse off because your audience is basically filtering itself out until you have the people most likely to do business with you and appreciate what you have to say.

And in that sense, controversial blogging might be the way to go, might be the thing that sets you apart from other real estate bloggers: If you aren't afraid to touch the hot-button issues, sooner or later someone somewhere will begin to respect that and have an interest in associating with you.

But.

That is generally too small a chance to risk alienating a much larger reader base, the "hey I'm interested in your local market and you know a lot about it" readers that could easily turn and become your "but something you said really left a bad taste in my mouth so I'll go with someone else" readers.

Even though.

Controversy can create buzz. Buzz can create interest. Interest can create traffic. And traffic can create customers.

I had this whole idea of incorporating ideas from Heller's novel Catch-22 into this post because it fits, the idea of dealing with circular arguments and the tyranny of trying to escape them, and I think this discussion on controversial blogging is essentially a Catch-22, how once we begin writing controversial blogs, the minute we enlist, basically, we become Yossarian, we become the guy stuck in the cyclical bind of some inane trap we would never be able to escape unless we somehow have the dumb luck of Orr or the eventual wherewithal of Yossarian to make it to neutral Sweden. That was the gist of it, but there were a couple hitches in my mind that I couldn't work my way around to present a more fluid analogy, and it floundered.

If you have no idea what any of that means anyway, the basic point is this: controversial blogging could create business from a certain type of reader, but you are also likely to lose many other readers in the process.

In the vast expanse of the blogosphere, writing something controversial can seem insignificant because there is so much going on out there that it's hard to be noticed in the first place. But when you are noticed for creating controversy, especially as a local real estate blogger, you might decide you actually don't want to be noticed for it after all because it is affecting your image and, therefore, your ability to market. But you'll never be able to do enough damage control to fully erase the print of what you wrote to begin with, and as long as you're in this business there will always be the chance for Google to become the Great Loyalty Oath Crusade, for you to become Yossarian, for your controversial post to actually become your undoing, your own personal controversy, your own lingering Catch-22.

- Christopher Zabka

Filed under: ,
More Posts Next page »