Real Estate Politics

A Move Towards Socialism - Should the Government be Buying Stocks?

realestatepolitics — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 15:18:00 GMT

By Marc Grossman 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...(read more)

The Bail-Out – Who's Being Bailed Out & Who's Bailing Out!?!

realestatepolitics — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 15:55:00 GMT

By Marc Grossman 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...(read more)

Blight - Or Do As I Say and Not As I Do?

realestatepolitics — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 14:44:00 GMT

By Marc Grossman 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...(read more)

The Housing Bill - A Panacea or False Hope

realestatepolitics — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 16:10:00 GMT

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...(read more)

Campaign Contributions - Who's in Whose Pocket?

realestatepolitics — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 16:14:00 GMT

by Marc Grossman 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...(read more)

"The Subprime Primer"

realestatepolitics — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 20:42:00 GMT

Here's one take on the subprime mortgage mess that we found a while back. It's a downloadable PDF. /files/storage/SubPrime_101.pdf Warning: contains strong language....(read more)

The American Housing Rescue and Foreclosure Prevention Act

realestatepolitics — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 15:10:00 GMT

by Marc Grossman 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...(read more)

Welcome to Marc's Corner!

mrzabka — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:57:00 GMT

by Marc Grossman 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...(read more)

Honestly?

mrzabka — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 22:43:00 GMT

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

An Inconvenient Truth about 1 Famous Green Home

realestatepolitics — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 15:00:00 GMT

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.

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.
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.

The Flood Effect

realestatepolitics — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 19:02:00 GMT

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

Memorial Day - Thinking of Brian Freeman

mrzabka — Mon, 26 May 2008 23:12:00 GMT

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

The Buddy System?

mrzabka — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 19:18:00 GMT

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

And the winner is...

mrzabka — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 15:35:00 GMT

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

Controversial blogging and Yossarian...sort of

mrzabka — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 16:07:00 GMT

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