Disqus - Latest Comments for jsheehan200

Re: The Nation contributor: Trump critics would rather impeach than avoid war with Russia

Joe Sheehan — Sun, 22 Jul 2018 12:20:56 -0000

Aren't there several options between impeachment and war with Russia?

Re: Why You Need To Care About What’s Happening To Melissa Harris-Perry

Joe Sheehan — Sat, 27 Feb 2016 07:02:06 -0000

I feel badly for her. I think she's brilliant. It's our loss that she is gone from the airwaves.

Re: City of Eastvale to Real Estate Investors: FOAD

Joe Sheehan — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 13:32:14 -0000

FYI - Ordnances such as this are somewhat commonplace in many communities in the suburbs of Philadelphia.

Re: Coordinated effort to target real estate scrapers underway

Joe Sheehan — Mon, 05 Aug 2013 08:41:49 -0000

There are three issues of concern to me as a REALTOR(r) that deal with the problems caused by screen scraping listings.

First, accuracy. If changes are made in the MLS that effect the MLS listings, it is unlikely those changes will be propagated to the sites that stole them. One of the major complaints made by REALTORS(r) about Z,T, and R and other LEGITIMATE listing source sites is data accuracy. What most fail to realize that the REALTORS(r) themselves are large part of the problem by manually entering listings and not maintaining them. We have a difficult enough time keeping the legit sites accurate. How would we expect to manage the listings on these sites that we don't even know about?

Second, fraud. Many of these screen scraped listings turn into bait to suck unsuspecting consumers into elaborate fraud schemes. It seems shocking that this still happens, but there are actually consumers out there who will wire security deposits to Zimbabwe bank accounts and await lease and keys for the home they just "rented" on Craigslist.

Third, ethics. Article 12 of the REALTOR(r) code of ethics requires that REALTORS(r) are responsible for presenting a true picture in representations to the public. Now, one could argue that these stolen listings fall outside the control of the average REALTOR(r). Tell that to the ethics hearing panel or the judge.

Should REALTORS(r) bear responsibility to protect their data so it cannot be scraped or stolen and misrepresented on a renegade website? Perhaps they should.

Re: Technology still an afterthought for many big brokers

Joe Sheehan — Wed, 24 Jul 2013 09:52:31 -0000

Seems Theresa cut a little close to the bone

Re: CAR vs. dotloop: Sparks fly in debate over forms software [VIDEO]

Joe Sheehan — Wed, 17 Jul 2013 23:30:34 -0000

The point is not to raise revenues from non-members but to offer a member benefit thereby encouraging non-members to become members.

We can enter into a pissing contest as to who has the better solution but it's subjective and pointless. I appreciate the efforts of KW to offer a solution to their brokers but as an independent contractor I like the ability to choose my own "best of breed" (my opinion) solutions and not be locked into a solution chosen for me by the broker.

The number of non-member licensees in PA is pretty large. Not sure of the exact number but I'll bet it's more than 20,000. I am sure there is a good bit of form piracy happening but it is conceivable that non-members will not have access to the automated systems without either being a member or paying a premium.

PAR invests a lot of money in form development and on-going maintenance. There are task forces empaneled at just about any moment working on improving the forms or creating new ones. I currently sit on 2 of those task forces as we speak. Why should non-members who make no investment have equal access to this benefit?

I'm not going to defend CAR or DotLoop. I hope they can resolve their differences. I will say this notion of DotLoop as a maverick, upstart corporation and should be admired for that is fine. But that status doesn't give them permission to run roughshod over established organizations that have invested heavily in and wish to protect their assets.

As I said in a previous post, KW and DotLoop should have worked out this issue with the various state associations before putting their systems into production.

The CAR is representing the best interest of it's members because it is the members. The CAR Board of Directors is comprised of REALTOR(r) members and they make the decisions for the Association. If they think DotLoop should be a forms vendor, then it will become a vendor. KW may be a large brokerage in California, but it's not the only brokerage.

Re: CAR vs. dotloop: Sparks fly in debate over forms software [VIDEO]

Joe Sheehan — Wed, 17 Jul 2013 23:00:21 -0000

Thanks, Major. :)

Re: CAR vs. dotloop: Sparks fly in debate over forms software [VIDEO]

Joe Sheehan — Wed, 17 Jul 2013 21:58:38 -0000

There is an important subtle message in Mr. Shimkus' comments:

“We are not simply looking to license forms from Zip and then do whatever we want with them,” Shimkus explains. “We are working with Ziplogix so that we are using the zipForms provisioning engine check to to see if the individual is licensed to use forms, and which ones they are licensed to use."

Currently in Pennsylvania, the forms vendors manage the licensing of the forms through their annual fee. They collect the fee from their subscribers and then pay PAR a licensing fee per each user. Real Estate licensees whether they are REALTORS(r) or not have access to the PAR forms by simply a subscription to the form vendor platform.

Next year, PAR will take control of the licensing of the forms directly with PAR members through the collection of dues. By doing so, PAR in the future will be able to control who has access to the forms by virtue of their PAR membership. Non-members will have to pay a premium if they want the license to use the forms as non-PAR members.

Some forms vendors, ZipLogix being one of them, can validate REALTOR(r) users through validation against the NAR NRDS database. If you have no NRDS number, you don't get the member license to the forms.

I foresee compliance problems arising with forms vendors who don't have the ability to validate their subscribers against the NRDS database.

Being able to upload any document into the form vendor system may sound like a "feature" but I think PAR might see that as a security flaw in the future.

Finally, many brokers and individuals can manage their own personal suite of forms through the ZipLogix system. I'm not sure of how the mechanics of that works but I know there are many ZipForms users using a combination of PAR and their own custom forms through the ZipForms application.

Re: CAR vs. dotloop: Sparks fly in debate over forms software [VIDEO]

Joe Sheehan — Wed, 17 Jul 2013 21:13:59 -0000

For the record, this isn't system's issue. The forms are installed in the DotLoop system by simply uploading the PDF and creating a template from it. If CAR and DotLoop are able to work out the licensing issues, the problem goes away. There are no systems or integration issues to be resolved.

Re: CAR vs. dotloop: Sparks fly in debate over forms software [VIDEO]

Joe Sheehan — Wed, 17 Jul 2013 21:00:58 -0000

I remember having a conversation like this with the Allison brothers at RETSO in 2011. eEdge was about to roll out in PA and they obviously hadn't realized that there would be licensing issues with the PAR forms. I was and still am on the PAR Standard Forms Oversight Committee and suggested they reach out to PAR to acquire the rights to use the forms. They did and at the end of the day, all's well that ends well, at least in Pennsylvania.

I think that when a major real estate brokerage undertakes a major business system integration the size and scope of eEdge, they and their software vendors should take care and deal with compliance issues before going into production. Lesson learned? The 7 Ps are the always the first rule of project management: Proper Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance.

Re: CAR vs. dotloop: Sparks fly in debate over forms software [VIDEO]

Joe Sheehan — Tue, 16 Jul 2013 08:55:38 -0000

Does C.A.R allow some of the other forms software vendors access to their forms?

Re: CAR vs. dotloop: Sparks fly in debate over forms software [VIDEO]

Joe Sheehan — Tue, 16 Jul 2013 08:54:52 -0000

That DotLoop is a better promulgated form delivery system is arguable. I do agree though that REALTOR(r)-Brokers and REALTORS(r) should decide for themselves which system they prefer. The Association should not make those judgements (IMHO).

However, as CEO of the C.A.R, Joel Singer does need to consider the non-dues revenue aspect of ZipLogix.

Also, I don't think this is a precedent. I believe the once popular, now defunct RealFast was owned by the North Carolina Association of Realtors.

Re: CAR vs. dotloop: Sparks fly in debate over forms software [VIDEO]

Joe Sheehan — Sun, 14 Jul 2013 09:38:06 -0000

The reason the Pennsylvania REALTOR(r) Association has added DotLoop to its list of approved forms vendors is because of the large number of DotLoop users in the commonwealth, particularly those agents associated with a particular franchise that has standardized and integrated DotLoop into it's business systems.

PAR does not make any judgements or offer any endorsement of any of our approved forms vendors to our membership. We leave it to the members to decide what's best for them.

As of today, each forms vendor is responsible to pay PAR a licensing fee per subscribed member for use of the forms.

Re: CAR vs. dotloop: Sparks fly in debate over forms software [VIDEO]

Joe Sheehan — Sun, 14 Jul 2013 09:26:28 -0000

I could be wrong but I think that ZipForms is provided to CAR members at no cost.

Re: CAR vs. dotloop: Sparks fly in debate over forms software [VIDEO]

Joe Sheehan — Thu, 11 Jul 2013 19:00:34 -0000

Thanks Jeff. That's what I thought.

Re: CAR vs. dotloop: Sparks fly in debate over forms software [VIDEO]

Joe Sheehan — Thu, 11 Jul 2013 18:16:19 -0000

Did I understand that? The State of California REQUIRES the use of CAR forms? What do non-REALTOR(r) licensees use?

Re: Private pre-MLS Facebook forum embraced by agents

Joe Sheehan — Mon, 08 Jul 2013 12:51:15 -0000

The states have laws. The COE is not law, We comply voluntarily. Also, their are contractual obligations on both sides, malpractice, errors & omissions, liability, any number of ways the consumer is protected.

Re: Private pre-MLS Facebook forum embraced by agents

Joe Sheehan — Mon, 08 Jul 2013 12:45:25 -0000

Just about everyone for whom I do a listing presentation says that they will be interviewing other agents. There are some who say they won't but that's because of my long relationship with them. They understand more than I think you're giving them credit.

Re: Private pre-MLS Facebook forum embraced by agents

Joe Sheehan — Mon, 08 Jul 2013 12:40:39 -0000

I am emailing you a copy of the Code of Ethics. It's not a secret document. I wish you would read it before commenting on what it says.

Re: Private pre-MLS Facebook forum embraced by agents

Joe Sheehan — Mon, 08 Jul 2013 12:38:06 -0000

If they are a REALTOR(r) they are protected by the code of ethics. They are also bound to practice in accordance with the code of ethics. That is a benefit of membership. Non-REALTORS(r) may also file ethics complaints against REALTORS(r) but REALTORS(r) have no standing against non-REALTORS(r).

Re: Private pre-MLS Facebook forum embraced by agents

Joe Sheehan — Mon, 08 Jul 2013 12:34:08 -0000

The code of ethics doesn't say that. Article 15 says REALTORS(r) shall not make false or misleading statements about other real estate professionals, their businesses, or their business practices.

One could make critical remarks about other agents but since most criticism is very subjective, how is that fair to the agent being criticized. We offer due process to complainants and respondents so they can offer their evidence to a fair and impartial panel. Seems like the most fair way to deal with any problems.

Re: Private pre-MLS Facebook forum embraced by agents

Joe Sheehan — Mon, 08 Jul 2013 12:28:08 -0000

So you're saying that's my responsibility?

Re: Private pre-MLS Facebook forum embraced by agents

Joe Sheehan — Mon, 08 Jul 2013 10:49:59 -0000

By the way, how can you say the COE is huge problem in your comment above and in this comment say you don't have access to it and don't know what it says? On what do your base your opinion that it's a huge problem?

Re: Private pre-MLS Facebook forum embraced by agents

Joe Sheehan — Mon, 08 Jul 2013 10:40:57 -0000

That is why home sellers should interview several REALTORS(r) before making a choice.

Re: Private pre-MLS Facebook forum embraced by agents

Joe Sheehan — Mon, 08 Jul 2013 10:39:30 -0000

Article 16 of the COE says REALTORS(r) shall not engage in any practice that is inconsistent with exclusive representation of another REALTORS(r) client. Non-REALTORS(r) are owed no such duty as dictated by the COE. Of course, personal code of ethics should prevail.