Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
Rob Hahn
Is this you? Claim Profile »
2 months ago
in Take Back Your SERP: New Real Estate Agent Grassroots Movement on Sellsius
"I don't think media companies like Trulia will survive in the real estate space without jacking prices to agents for featured listings and ads."
I don't know if anyone has actually done a business analysis of looking at listing aggregator sites as a media play. It may be that even with a ceiling, the more segmented audience may lead to a higher CPM/CPC rate than generic media.
That's looking at it from non-realtor advertisers, like Home Depot, of course.
-rsh
PS: Loopnet seems to do just fine as a "media play" by the way.
I don't know if anyone has actually done a business analysis of looking at listing aggregator sites as a media play. It may be that even with a ceiling, the more segmented audience may lead to a higher CPM/CPC rate than generic media.
That's looking at it from non-realtor advertisers, like Home Depot, of course.
-rsh
PS: Loopnet seems to do just fine as a "media play" by the way.
1 reply
2 months ago
in Take Back Your SERP: New Real Estate Agent Grassroots Movement on Sellsius
Joe -- you're on fire today. :)
While I may agree with everything you've written, I do think there's something a little bit missing. Which is... why does T&Z have any traffic at all?
Fact is, consumers don't care whose website they are on; they care about user experience. Perhaps buyers need to know that they're not getting 100% of the MLS/IDX listings, but that's something an agent will do for them anyway somewhere in the process. And most agent/broker websites provide the user experience of a particularly opaque federal agency.
So my question is this: Suppose tomorrow, Pete Flint were to resign and hand the reins of Trulia to you. How would you change things? How do you make money if you're T&Z in real partnership with the realtor community, if as you say, they're currently taking advantage of them?
Is there a way forward? Or is this simply a case of T&Z (along with Realtor.com) needing to go out of business?
-rsh
While I may agree with everything you've written, I do think there's something a little bit missing. Which is... why does T&Z have any traffic at all?
Fact is, consumers don't care whose website they are on; they care about user experience. Perhaps buyers need to know that they're not getting 100% of the MLS/IDX listings, but that's something an agent will do for them anyway somewhere in the process. And most agent/broker websites provide the user experience of a particularly opaque federal agency.
So my question is this: Suppose tomorrow, Pete Flint were to resign and hand the reins of Trulia to you. How would you change things? How do you make money if you're T&Z in real partnership with the realtor community, if as you say, they're currently taking advantage of them?
Is there a way forward? Or is this simply a case of T&Z (along with Realtor.com) needing to go out of business?
-rsh
1 reply
jfsellsius
Must be all the Harvard videos I watched at YouTubeEdu.
Yes, buyers do need to know they're not getting 100% of the MLS/IDX listings, which are available on RE agents' websites. And yes, this falls on the agents' shoulders to make this common public knowledge. But in the name of all that is holy in the transparent age, shouldn't TruZilla expose this bug in their soup as a service to the consuming public, or is the median error rate more valuable (that error rate is totally worthless BTW) IMO, they should. Not their job? That's Web 1.0 non transparency-- same old shitake. I thought we are in a new age. Apparently not. They are transparency posers, plain and simple.
If Trulia & Zillow were up front about the MLS/IDX gap they would actually be helping agents-- so keeping it a dirty little secret means, to me, they really don;t want consumers going to agent websites directly to see all the MLS/IDX listings. Bad kitty.
Consumers care about listings #1-- even over user experience. I'd wager you can give them a crappy Craigslist UI-- if it had ALL the listings, they would go there. So agent ads on Trulia or Zillow-- a total waste of money IMO. I'm rooting for a metasearch engine like retrove.
Here is my advice to Zillow (Im still waiting for their check), a company which could win the cola wars if they knew how to use what they, and no others, have:
http://blog.sellsiusrealestate.com/zillow/a-val...
But their Kelley Blew It Book zestimate is their curse. Plus their UI really needs an overhaul. Awful. I feel like I want to squint.
I don't think media companies like Trulia will survive in the real estate space without jacking prices to agents for featured listings and ads. (IMO Pete and Sami would rather sell their science project and move on. These guys dont come from the industry & have no attachment to it). The reason for the ad dollar straightjacket is because, IMO, there is a "visitor ceiling" on real estate portals-- you're never going to see 10 million monthly uniques for listings-- unless you take the TruZilla monster to China.
Yes, buyers do need to know they're not getting 100% of the MLS/IDX listings, which are available on RE agents' websites. And yes, this falls on the agents' shoulders to make this common public knowledge. But in the name of all that is holy in the transparent age, shouldn't TruZilla expose this bug in their soup as a service to the consuming public, or is the median error rate more valuable (that error rate is totally worthless BTW) IMO, they should. Not their job? That's Web 1.0 non transparency-- same old shitake. I thought we are in a new age. Apparently not. They are transparency posers, plain and simple.
If Trulia & Zillow were up front about the MLS/IDX gap they would actually be helping agents-- so keeping it a dirty little secret means, to me, they really don;t want consumers going to agent websites directly to see all the MLS/IDX listings. Bad kitty.
Consumers care about listings #1-- even over user experience. I'd wager you can give them a crappy Craigslist UI-- if it had ALL the listings, they would go there. So agent ads on Trulia or Zillow-- a total waste of money IMO. I'm rooting for a metasearch engine like retrove.
Here is my advice to Zillow (Im still waiting for their check), a company which could win the cola wars if they knew how to use what they, and no others, have:
http://blog.sellsiusrealestate.com/zillow/a-val...
But their Kelley Blew It Book zestimate is their curse. Plus their UI really needs an overhaul. Awful. I feel like I want to squint.
I don't think media companies like Trulia will survive in the real estate space without jacking prices to agents for featured listings and ads. (IMO Pete and Sami would rather sell their science project and move on. These guys dont come from the industry & have no attachment to it). The reason for the ad dollar straightjacket is because, IMO, there is a "visitor ceiling" on real estate portals-- you're never going to see 10 million monthly uniques for listings-- unless you take the TruZilla monster to China.
3 months ago
in Does Size Matter In Social Media? (Or Does It Just Feel Better?) on Sellsius
Hehe, if they came to our LSSMC meetings, they'd know. :)
Anyhow, re: this passage:
Maybe the problem is that I fundamentally see social media as just a way to have interesting conversations. So quality followers to me are folks I can have interesting conversations with.
The Walmart example is again skewed and not on point. Quality doesn't translate to "wealthy". If I were out to sell a whole mess o' goods, then I'd want to be the low-cost provider to get the largest number of poor folks buying from me.
But if my goal is to have interesting conversations, and learn from people, and expand my horizons, then I rather think the definition of "quality" vs. "quantity" change dramatically. i can't have a conversation with 1,000 people; I can broadcast to a 1,000 people, but not truly converse with them.
I can -- with social media tools -- have convos with multiple people at the same time, as long as they're responding back, giving and taking, and so on.
-rsh
Anyhow, re: this passage:
Quality will not always trump quantity when it comes to ROI. Just ask Sam Walton or F.W. Woolworth (wait, they're dead) or the guy who came up with the Dollar store. In real estate, are you getting a better ROI selling mansions over starter homes? Is a seller a better quality client than a buyer? It depends on the market. Maybe the smarter ROI strategy is to do rentals. Quality v quantity comes down to -- it depends.
If One Quality Follower is Good, is 10 Better?
In terms of followers, I certainly would prefer quality followers, i.e. those who might hire, refer or recommend me. But there's a problem---I don't know how to make that judgment. Do you? So by increasing the followers you attract (as supposed to solicit by quid pro quo following), you increase the chances of attracting more quality followers.
Maybe the problem is that I fundamentally see social media as just a way to have interesting conversations. So quality followers to me are folks I can have interesting conversations with.
The Walmart example is again skewed and not on point. Quality doesn't translate to "wealthy". If I were out to sell a whole mess o' goods, then I'd want to be the low-cost provider to get the largest number of poor folks buying from me.
But if my goal is to have interesting conversations, and learn from people, and expand my horizons, then I rather think the definition of "quality" vs. "quantity" change dramatically. i can't have a conversation with 1,000 people; I can broadcast to a 1,000 people, but not truly converse with them.
I can -- with social media tools -- have convos with multiple people at the same time, as long as they're responding back, giving and taking, and so on.
-rsh
1 reply
jfsellsius
So would you think it better to have 5 of those quality followers or 50?
3 months ago
in Does Size Matter In Social Media? (Or Does It Just Feel Better?) on Sellsius
Love the continuation of the debate, Joe. :) Since this one, I am personally on the other side, I can take that back up.
The truism that if you have zero followers, then quality doesn't matter is just that: a truism. The real question is whether quality trumps quantity or not.
And FWIW, I don't know that you measure quality in terms of "how much $$ will this follower bring me". I rather think of quality in terms of "how much does this person add to the conversation, bring up questions and points, and is worthy of following himself/herself?"
One thing that does strike me is that the more someone tries to use social media as a lead-gen tool, the less effective that someone tends to be. Why is that? I'm not sure I know. But it does happen.
-rsh
The truism that if you have zero followers, then quality doesn't matter is just that: a truism. The real question is whether quality trumps quantity or not.
And FWIW, I don't know that you measure quality in terms of "how much $$ will this follower bring me". I rather think of quality in terms of "how much does this person add to the conversation, bring up questions and points, and is worthy of following himself/herself?"
One thing that does strike me is that the more someone tries to use social media as a lead-gen tool, the less effective that someone tends to be. Why is that? I'm not sure I know. But it does happen.
-rsh
1 reply
jfsellsius
I always enjoy rasslin' with you, Rob. Readers should know we do it all the time.
Quality will not always trump quantity when it comes to ROI. Just ask Sam Walton or F.W. Woolworth (wait, they're dead) or the guy who came up with the Dollar store. In real estate, are you getting a better ROI selling mansions over starter homes? Is a seller a better quality client than a buyer? It depends on the market. Maybe the smarter ROI strategy is to do rentals. Quality v quantity comes down to -- it depends.
If One Quality Follower is Good, is 10 Better?
In terms of followers, I certainly would prefer quality followers, i.e. those who might hire, refer or recommend me. But there's a problem---I don't know how to make that judgment. Do you? So by increasing the followers you attract (as supposed to solicit by quid pro quo following), you increase the chances of attracting more quality followers.
In the example I use in the post, if the goal was to attract 100 quality followers, if A has 100 and C 10,000, A would need 100% of his followers to meet the goal while C would need only 1% of his. And if C can do better than 1% he will beat even A's 100 quality followers.
Now, here's a little story that may help. Gary V said he put an offer for free shipping on his website and other online and offline venues (I think even his billboard) and he got more takers from Twitter (1700) than from all other venues combined. Now, Gary has over 100,000 followers so 1700 maybe aint that great--- but if he had only 100 followers, I think 1700 sales would be out of the question. (Maybe that's why Super Bowl ads cost so much.)
(Yes, I agree that you don't have to judge quality in $ and can look at what comes from the interaction in SM-- but that interaction is not restricted to your social media entourage.)
The lead gen thing is up for grabs-- the problem lies in the quantity and quality of the lead gen message. Too much is no good and even a little won't work if it's cheesy. IMO, the degree of lead gen success is a function of the quantity and quality of the message and, more importantly, the perceived value the receiver derives from that message. That's why tutorial marketing is, perhaps, the lead gen tool of web 2.0 and social media-- I'll buy the Thesis theme for my Wordpress blog because Brian Clark is one helluva blogger and teacher.
In the case of lead gen in SM, the old in and out may not bring the most pleasure.
Quality will not always trump quantity when it comes to ROI. Just ask Sam Walton or F.W. Woolworth (wait, they're dead) or the guy who came up with the Dollar store. In real estate, are you getting a better ROI selling mansions over starter homes? Is a seller a better quality client than a buyer? It depends on the market. Maybe the smarter ROI strategy is to do rentals. Quality v quantity comes down to -- it depends.
If One Quality Follower is Good, is 10 Better?
In terms of followers, I certainly would prefer quality followers, i.e. those who might hire, refer or recommend me. But there's a problem---I don't know how to make that judgment. Do you? So by increasing the followers you attract (as supposed to solicit by quid pro quo following), you increase the chances of attracting more quality followers.
In the example I use in the post, if the goal was to attract 100 quality followers, if A has 100 and C 10,000, A would need 100% of his followers to meet the goal while C would need only 1% of his. And if C can do better than 1% he will beat even A's 100 quality followers.
Now, here's a little story that may help. Gary V said he put an offer for free shipping on his website and other online and offline venues (I think even his billboard) and he got more takers from Twitter (1700) than from all other venues combined. Now, Gary has over 100,000 followers so 1700 maybe aint that great--- but if he had only 100 followers, I think 1700 sales would be out of the question. (Maybe that's why Super Bowl ads cost so much.)
(Yes, I agree that you don't have to judge quality in $ and can look at what comes from the interaction in SM-- but that interaction is not restricted to your social media entourage.)
The lead gen thing is up for grabs-- the problem lies in the quantity and quality of the lead gen message. Too much is no good and even a little won't work if it's cheesy. IMO, the degree of lead gen success is a function of the quantity and quality of the message and, more importantly, the perceived value the receiver derives from that message. That's why tutorial marketing is, perhaps, the lead gen tool of web 2.0 and social media-- I'll buy the Thesis theme for my Wordpress blog because Brian Clark is one helluva blogger and teacher.
In the case of lead gen in SM, the old in and out may not bring the most pleasure.
4 months ago
in The NAR Made A Dog An Offer He Couldn’t Refuse: A Trademark He Could Pimp on Sellsius
Is the movie over already? I just got my popcorn and candy!
I think Greg and you should debate at RE Tech South instead of me... I'm willing to yield my slot.
-rsh
I think Greg and you should debate at RE Tech South instead of me... I'm willing to yield my slot.
-rsh
1 reply
jfsellsius
The man only debates on Animal Farms.
7 months ago
in Charity Makes You Hot on Sellsius7 months ago
in Let U.S. Seniors Defer Real Estate Property Taxes Like Canadians on Sellsius
Deferment of taxes is a clear subsidy mechanism. Otherwise, what's the point of doing it in the first place? Just like having your income taxes deferred on your IRA or 401(k) is a major benefit, creating a real incentive to invest in retirement accounts, deferring property taxes would create a real incentive for seniors to hold on to housing they otherwise would have sold.
Working owners are in fact paying higher taxes, if we assume that the government does not cut spending to take account of the lost current revenues from the Senior Tax Deferment program. Someone has to pay for it.
School taxes are a whole other can o' worms, frankly, as that raises the whole question of whether property taxes are the appropriate way to finance government schools. For that matter, it raises the question of whether government schools should exist in the first place -- and if they should, then whether there should be price-based competition for such schools (via vouchers and the like).
So I consider that a red herring in this particular discussion.
At the same time, if property taxes are too high in order to support government schools, then a senior can justly decide to sell the house to a young family with children (who would gladly pay those taxes) and move to an area with lower school taxes (or none, as some seniors-only developments have). Deferment of taxes would defeat precisely this motivation to sell and move, resulting in lower supply in the market, which in turn drives up the price of housing.
-rsh
Working owners are in fact paying higher taxes, if we assume that the government does not cut spending to take account of the lost current revenues from the Senior Tax Deferment program. Someone has to pay for it.
School taxes are a whole other can o' worms, frankly, as that raises the whole question of whether property taxes are the appropriate way to finance government schools. For that matter, it raises the question of whether government schools should exist in the first place -- and if they should, then whether there should be price-based competition for such schools (via vouchers and the like).
So I consider that a red herring in this particular discussion.
At the same time, if property taxes are too high in order to support government schools, then a senior can justly decide to sell the house to a young family with children (who would gladly pay those taxes) and move to an area with lower school taxes (or none, as some seniors-only developments have). Deferment of taxes would defeat precisely this motivation to sell and move, resulting in lower supply in the market, which in turn drives up the price of housing.
-rsh
1 reply
jfsellsius
As I understand subsidies, they are payments or credits, not loans. To the extent the government is extending interest below market, at worst, you have a subsidized loan--- a tad more tasty than an outright subsidy, no?--- like the ones given to students to attend colleges they would otherwise not be able to afford. I am not against subsidized loans for seniors in this case, absent some proven disadvantage to some more deserving segment of the population. I would await some facts and figures before I am ready to denounce the program as a bad idea.
"Working owners are in fact paying higher taxes, if we assume that the government does not cut spending to take account of the lost current revenues from the Senior Tax Deferment program. Someone has to pay for it."
Yes, that would be an assumption. But even if the gov't were operating at a deficit or would require the raising of taxes to cover the shortfall from senior tax deferments, one group would not bear that burden over another-- as far as I know, the property taxes are uniformly assessed based on home value, not age or employment of the owner. So, in fact, any increased taxes would affect the entire tax paying group and not just working owners (we already covered the case that seniors may, in fact, be working owners)
"...deferring property taxes would create a real incentive for seniors to hold on to housing they otherwise would have sold."
I agree, but it that a bad outcome? I don't know, but I don't think so. As I see it, if they would otherwise not have sold, the result is a "forced" sale by these seniors. Forced sales lead to sales below market value. That seems to me an unfair deal to these folks who have built up equity in their homes and contributed to the community over the years-- at least w/ the deferment, a sale could be made at FMV. And would not the lower sales prices, in turn, drive down the values of other homes in the area?
And if the seniors sold, where would they go? To a rental? Would they then be raising the demand for rental housing, leading to higher rents, given current supply, thereby adversely affecting not only other seniors but young families who must rent. In the end, someone always pays. The question is perhaps seniors may have earned the right to get the break.
PS: School taxes are a part of my property taxes here in PA. If they are a part of BC property taxes, the herring is pickled and seniors maybe ought not be subsidizing (paying, not loaning) the taxes of homeowners with children.
As always, a delight to discuss with you, rsh.
"Working owners are in fact paying higher taxes, if we assume that the government does not cut spending to take account of the lost current revenues from the Senior Tax Deferment program. Someone has to pay for it."
Yes, that would be an assumption. But even if the gov't were operating at a deficit or would require the raising of taxes to cover the shortfall from senior tax deferments, one group would not bear that burden over another-- as far as I know, the property taxes are uniformly assessed based on home value, not age or employment of the owner. So, in fact, any increased taxes would affect the entire tax paying group and not just working owners (we already covered the case that seniors may, in fact, be working owners)
"...deferring property taxes would create a real incentive for seniors to hold on to housing they otherwise would have sold."
I agree, but it that a bad outcome? I don't know, but I don't think so. As I see it, if they would otherwise not have sold, the result is a "forced" sale by these seniors. Forced sales lead to sales below market value. That seems to me an unfair deal to these folks who have built up equity in their homes and contributed to the community over the years-- at least w/ the deferment, a sale could be made at FMV. And would not the lower sales prices, in turn, drive down the values of other homes in the area?
And if the seniors sold, where would they go? To a rental? Would they then be raising the demand for rental housing, leading to higher rents, given current supply, thereby adversely affecting not only other seniors but young families who must rent. In the end, someone always pays. The question is perhaps seniors may have earned the right to get the break.
PS: School taxes are a part of my property taxes here in PA. If they are a part of BC property taxes, the herring is pickled and seniors maybe ought not be subsidizing (paying, not loaning) the taxes of homeowners with children.
As always, a delight to discuss with you, rsh.
7 months ago
in Let U.S. Seniors Defer Real Estate Property Taxes Like Canadians on Sellsius
Blogfather -
Forgive my impertinence, but... this has to be one of the worst ideas I've ever seen posted on Sellsius, even by a guest blogger.
So we're going to import socialism from Canada?
Has there been any studies on impact of these tax deferments on market transactions, or market prices? When the taxpayers (aka, the "province" -- it isn't their own money the "province" is spending, but the taxpayers who live there) subsidize the homeownership of elderly people who apparently should have been moving out years ago, what is the effect on the local real estate market?
Restricting supply necessarily means higher prices if demand stays constant. So not only are the working families of British Columbia paying higher taxes so that old people can stay in homes they can not afford otherwise, but they end up paying higher home prices because the supply is restricted.
What a fantastic idea! NOT.
The free market works when it is allowed to work. These policies may be well-intended, but you know what they say about the road to hell....
-rsh
Forgive my impertinence, but... this has to be one of the worst ideas I've ever seen posted on Sellsius, even by a guest blogger.
So we're going to import socialism from Canada?
Has there been any studies on impact of these tax deferments on market transactions, or market prices? When the taxpayers (aka, the "province" -- it isn't their own money the "province" is spending, but the taxpayers who live there) subsidize the homeownership of elderly people who apparently should have been moving out years ago, what is the effect on the local real estate market?
Restricting supply necessarily means higher prices if demand stays constant. So not only are the working families of British Columbia paying higher taxes so that old people can stay in homes they can not afford otherwise, but they end up paying higher home prices because the supply is restricted.
What a fantastic idea! NOT.
The free market works when it is allowed to work. These policies may be well-intended, but you know what they say about the road to hell....
-rsh
1 reply
jf
I'm not sure deferring real estate property taxes to seniors (or others) is the road to socialism. Deferment does not operate to excuse the payment, it merely delays it, and at some cost, due to interest.
Since homes are taxed based on their value, and not age or employment of the owner (value of the owner?), I disagree the working owners are paying higher taxes by virtue of the program. In addition, we cannot conclude seniors who must defer taxes are unemployed-- many of them may still be among the working class of British Columbia.
Consider that "school taxes" are often a part of the real estate tax package. Since seniors have already put their children through the school system (and paid their taxes w/o deferment), their continued payment of those taxes puts them in the position of subsidizing the younger families currently putting their children through school. In such case, the idea is indeed a bad one-- seniors taxes should be justly LOWERED to the extent of any school taxes in the mix.
If studies have been made relating to the program's effect, I am unaware of them. Perhaps the author may shed some light on the consequences and the imagined road to hell may be paved in yellow bricks.
Since homes are taxed based on their value, and not age or employment of the owner (value of the owner?), I disagree the working owners are paying higher taxes by virtue of the program. In addition, we cannot conclude seniors who must defer taxes are unemployed-- many of them may still be among the working class of British Columbia.
Consider that "school taxes" are often a part of the real estate tax package. Since seniors have already put their children through the school system (and paid their taxes w/o deferment), their continued payment of those taxes puts them in the position of subsidizing the younger families currently putting their children through school. In such case, the idea is indeed a bad one-- seniors taxes should be justly LOWERED to the extent of any school taxes in the mix.
If studies have been made relating to the program's effect, I am unaware of them. Perhaps the author may shed some light on the consequences and the imagined road to hell may be paved in yellow bricks.
8 months ago
in Find My Dream House and I’ll Pay You $10,000: Crowdsourcing Real Estate Search on Sellsius
Heh, thanks Joe. :)
My thought was that it would be your friends and family that would be the crowd, rather than the random stranger. That probably has more to do with how I use blip.fm though -- I like listening to friends list rather than the odd stranger.
I can see offering a bounty like you suggest though -- but then, you'd have to train buyers to pay for buyer services. And if you can do that, then the whole "Buyer Agent" practice would be thriving, I'd imagine.
-rsh
My thought was that it would be your friends and family that would be the crowd, rather than the random stranger. That probably has more to do with how I use blip.fm though -- I like listening to friends list rather than the odd stranger.
I can see offering a bounty like you suggest though -- but then, you'd have to train buyers to pay for buyer services. And if you can do that, then the whole "Buyer Agent" practice would be thriving, I'd imagine.
-rsh
1 reply
jfsellsius
The "house bounty" is equivalent to the buyer's premium paid at auctions for personal property. If you call it a "house reward" you can equate it to finding your lost Rolex. It's all in the packaging.
I do believe the buyer's agent practice will begin to thrive once consumers realize "Hey, I didn't know my agent was actually working for the seller."
Your friends and family sound great-- I can't even get mine to give me a lift to the airport :)
I do believe the buyer's agent practice will begin to thrive once consumers realize "Hey, I didn't know my agent was actually working for the seller."
Your friends and family sound great-- I can't even get mine to give me a lift to the airport :)
10 months ago
in Real Estate Homestead Idea on Maxsell Real Estate
Hi Brad,
Just wanted to say thanks for the comments. Although I share your skepticism about congresscritters... this doesn't strike me as anything that any union or special interest would oppose. It shouldn't have any impact on government jobs, etc. So I thought it might have a shot.
Maybe I need to write my congresscritter -- oh that's right. He hates me and my town, seeing as how we've been gerrymandered into his district....
-rsh
Just wanted to say thanks for the comments. Although I share your skepticism about congresscritters... this doesn't strike me as anything that any union or special interest would oppose. It shouldn't have any impact on government jobs, etc. So I thought it might have a shot.
Maybe I need to write my congresscritter -- oh that's right. He hates me and my town, seeing as how we've been gerrymandered into his district....
-rsh
1 reply
bnix
I completely agree. It's a win-win for everyone. It's so simple and obvious that I am certain congresscritters would junk it up, bloat it up and mess it up, but I am still a bit cynical based on the last real estate law they passed: Housing and Economic Recovery Act. I will write my congresscritter (love that term) and help plant some seeds.
As a local bank director, I can't think of a better plan to bail us out of the foreclosure crisis (and it is a crisis for many many banks).
As a local bank director, I can't think of a better plan to bail us out of the foreclosure crisis (and it is a crisis for many many banks).
Loopnet is a commercial real estate site, so a bit of an orange in the TZ apple cart. To the best of my recollection, they charge hefty subscription fees to members and featured listings fees? It certainly provides a model for the future Trulia -- free members get this morsel, paying members get the whole pie.