I can't tell you the number of times that I have called clients, only to have my phone calls either returned two days later, or sometimes never. I hear plenty of excuses, the most common being "I am too busy". But nothing irks me more than contacting a client regarding an important item, or better yet, a looming deadline, only to hear crickets as my messages go unanswered.

See, real estate is its own beast. Things can fall apart in a hurry if people don't communicate. Sometimes I feel us real estate agents earn our money best by chasing people around for signatures and approvals. Why is it that if a client leaves me a message or email, they expect me to call them back with-in 30 seconds, but for me, some clients feel no need to hurry up and do the same. I believe the door should swing both ways. Oh, but that's just my opinion.

No I am no saint, and have had my moments when I have failed to reply quickly. But I tell all those that know me that I usually respond the same day, if not in 24 hours.

I guess the moral of the story is to pick up the phone, or tippy tap away on the keyboard, and at least acknowledge your agent's existence. If you fail to, please don't ask them why the deal has fallen apart and the other party is walking away, or better yet, why you must follow through with the home purchase or forgeit your deposit.

I just got a phone call from a very pushy salesman at Realtor.com. It got to the point where he was getting very upset with me because I was questioning his statistics and his reasoning. A civil conversation at the least, but an interesting one at that.

See, I refuse to sign up with their website to feature my listings. I used there "showcase listings" system when I lived in Florida a few years ago, and honestly didn't see any return on my investment. When it was time for me to move to Minnesota, I obviously had to start my business from the ground up. It had been a year since I had been using them with six listings, so my subscription was up for renewal. I had sold all my Florida listings save one, but Realtor.com told me that to continue the featured listing service, I would now have to pay $1300 for the next year. What?! But I only have one listing. Talk about highway robbery. My current rate was $200. I quickly decided to NOT renew.

For me, it comes down to principle. I personally do not agree with the pricing structure that Realtor.com has chosen to implement. To tell me that this year, if I signed up, I would pay $345 for 10 featured listings, but next year, the new price would be $710, is ridiculous. They should have a flat rate system, and it would be better for business.

But no, THEY are the "largest real estate website" out there and they can charge what they want. THEY control the buyers, yada, yada, yada....or so they think. While talking to the rep today, he gave me all kinds of statiscics and data to prove his point. Even going to the length to tell me that I did not know what I was talking about when it came to my local market and how buyers find homes.

He even said that I should go with a year subscription, then cancel so as not to incur the higher fee with renewal. To me, if I am going to invest time and energy into such a service, I am not going to spend a year featuring these listings, to dump them in a year.

The funny thing about the website that is "looking out for its members", is that our MLS idx feed supplies them with all the information they need, additional photos, contact info, etc. So if they are already getting this information, which I pay to have sent to them via my Realtor Association dues and fees, why should I pay them more to release the information? There are plenty of sites that my listings are syndicated to that do this for free.

When I mentioned Trulia and Zillow, the rep got defensive. He asked me how many sales I have generated via Trulia, and I told him two in the last six months. I then told him I have received more listings and sales via my blogs and website, than I have with Realtor.com (which is zero). His answer was that I could do more with their enhancements.

Sorry, but I don't think so.

I told him that Realtor.com is rarely used by the buyers I speak with here in Minnesota. They use other sites that have more market exposure. He didn't believe me, and spewed more stats and data. Talk about pushy! I told him he doesn't know my market, being that he is in Los Angeles. Hasn't he ever heard the phrase "Real Estate is Local"?

So once again, I have shot down Realtor.com. I have better places to put my money that will get me more local market exposure and better ROI. I didn't mention that I am on Active Rain and would be writing about this...that might have been the straw to break the camel's back.

Oh, and by the way, when searching 'minneapolis real estate', my website comes up second, Realtor.com comes up sixth. Hmmmm.....

One of my favorite spots to visit in Minneapolis is Minnehaha Falls. A few weeks ago, I took the camera out on a cloudy day and was able to capture this silky effect of the waterfall.

(I placed this post originally on my Historic Home Blog today, and thought it best to bring it on over to my other blogs, as an FYI about copyright and not stealing my photos and content.)

A recent incident that is now recurring is forcing me to write this post about copyright of photos used on this site. (Notice the "Do not Copy" notice on the leftside of this blog.) To some people, it is ok to go onto the Internet and lift photos of other peoples work. They then use these photos on their websites without permission. They either do not care or don't know the law, but either way, what they are doing is stealing....oh, and Copyright infringement.

As a visitor to this blog, I am sure you can easily see that I travel around the area taking photos of historic homes (and other places around the Twin Cities), then post them to my blog with a story about the home. It's what I do, and the whole reason for this blog, which is to educate locals and others about the great historic resource we have in Minnesota through our homes and buildings. Taking these photos takes time, energy, patience, and creative thought.

What many people fail to realize is that even though the Internet is public domain, the content is not free for all to use. The general rule of thumb (in this instance) is that once a photo hits a hard drive, it is considered copywritten. The photo does not have to have a copyright notice on the photo, nor a big C. In order to use a photo, one must obtain permission from the source. So for those people out there that "right click and save" and then use the photo, you are committing copyright infringement.

Any excuse you give does not matter. Taking something created by another without permission is wrong.

I could go into greater detail, but I don't want to clutter up my nice blog with a post such as this. I just want you to know, that I work hard to write this blog, so please do not steal my stuff. Simple as that.

If you want to learn more about Copyright law as it pertains to blogs and websites, please visit a great lady's blog regarding copyright law, Lenn Harley, for in depth articles on the subject.

Recently the Minnesota Association of Realtors has made its members aware of current legislation being proposed by the Minnesota House of Representatives that will greatly affect Minnesota homeowners in a negative way. On Monday, the Tax Committee "released a "delete all amendment" to HF2323 and added provisions that are negative for real estate in the Omnibus Tax Bill. Authored by DFL Representative Ann Lenczewski, it contains a number of tax law modifications that hurt all Minnesota home owners."

We all know that the state of Minnesota, as well as numerous states across the country, are hurting financially. They find themselves with a growing budget, but no way to fund the increased expenses. Instead of finding ways to cut within the government, many politicians choose to look to the tax payer for "relief". The only solution in their eyes is raise taxes or take away tax incentives.  Minnesota State spending, for the record, has gone from $14.5 billion in 1992/93 to $34.6 billion in 2008/09 - a 138% increase. 

(As an FYI: Governor Pawlenty has proposed a plan focused on reducing spending and raising revenue without raising taxes.)

No big surprise to those of us in real estate, but the house tax bill hurts real estatein the state of Minnesota. The DFL (Democrat) House Tax Plan raises revenue by cutting a number of income tax deductions. Of significant concern to Minnesota REALTORS® and homeowners, the DFL House plan eliminates two major real estate tax deductions: the Mortgage Interest Deduction and Real Estate Property Taxes. The bill also eliminates provisions of the Relative Homestead Tax.

• Elimination of Mortgage Interest Deduction (MID)- a feature of the tax code since 1933, the MID has helped numerous generations achieve the American Dream of owning a home. A significant public policy objective for decades, homeownership stabilizes families, neighborhoods and communities. The House DFL Tax Bill eliminates the MID for homeowners and replaces it with a "housing credit" for qualified homeowners. The maximum credit is $420, which is equal to 7 percent (7%) of up to $6,000 of mortgage interest paid during the taxable year. However, no credit is applied to the first $4,000 of interest paid. Therefore, a homeowner must pay at least $10,000 in MID in order to receive the full $420 credit. As an example, if a homeowner has mortgage interest of $8,000 in the tax year, the credit equals $280. ($8,000 - $4,000 = $4,000 x 7% = $280).

This provision hurts young families disproportionately because mortgage debt loads are highest when people are establishing their households. This provision changes the financial plans numerous families have made when purchasing a home and increases the financial difficulties many are facing during this economic downturn. At a time when housing is finally getting a financial foothold why eliminate a tax provision that has helped millions of families achieve the "American Dream?"

• Real Estate Property Tax Deductibility -This public policy provision has been included in the tax code since 1933 and allows taxpayers to deduct property taxes paid from their income. The House DFL Tax Bill eliminates the deductibility of real estate property taxes at a time when local property taxes continue to increase faster than Minnesotan's income.
• Relative Homestead- If you own identical houses, with identical values, with identical tax rates you would assume you would pay identical taxes - Right? Not if the House DFL Tax Bill becomes law. In a provision of the bill, authored by a DFL legislator, families that provide housing to other family members will pay more taxes on the second home. The goal of the provision, as stated by the legislator, is to stop parents from buying homes for their college students. MNAR pointed out that this is a small piece of the overall program and instead the proposal will be hurting families trying to assist other family members who may have gone through job loss, divorce or other financial difficulties. Isn't it better to have families provide for families instead of government?

WE NEED YOUR HELP

ACTION REQUEST: To fight this unbelievable proposal we are asking that you take three steps:

1. Please contact your legislator and let them know how you feel about this proposal. Please find attached a list with legislator contact information or use this link: http://www.leg.state.mn.us/leg/Districtfinder.asp
2. Forward this email to your clients, customers and friends. Let them know what is being proposed and give them the web address above to review the bill.
3. Go the extra mile and CALL your legislator about this tax bill. Let him/her know your concerns and how it will impact your clients, your family and your business. Let your Representative know that it is time for our elected officials to "LIVE WITHIN YOUR MEANS" by prioritizing spending and not raising taxes.
   You can access the bill summary (48 pages) at: http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/bs/86/HF2323.html

Every now and then I answer questions submitted by buyers and sellers on Trulia, an online real estate search site, which allows people to connect with knowledgeable local real estate agents. Lately I have seen an alarming trend with a few sellers out there who think they can take advantage of the current mortgage and economic mess. That trend is called bailing on your mortgage when you can readily pay.

A few weeks ago, one home seller admitted he was able to keep current with the mortgage he has on a rental property. The rent covers the mortgage, but the house is worth less that what he owes. So he wanted to know if it would be OK for him to stop paying on his rental and just let it slip into foreclosure....all because it is worth less. Now, his home is not even for sale, so there is no need to talk about a short sale. He just wants to jump into the "poor me" foreclosure pool and use the foreclosure mess as an excuse. Heaven forbid a home be worth less.

Just today, another gentleman wants to refinance his first mortgage so it is less, but bail on the second mortgage and stop paying, because he feels they won't try and foreclose on him. It seems he just wants to take advantage of the system and save a few bucks.

See, this is what is wrong in America today, lack of personal responsibility. People want to have it all, but when the time comes to pay the piper, they whine and cry and try to make everyone feel sorry for them. Look folks, if you take out a mortgage and you agree to pay it back, then do everything in your power to live up to that agreement. Not only did you sign the "promissory note" (meaning you promise to pay it back), but you have a moral obligation to live up to your word.

I recall a scene in "Jerry McGuire", when the football stars dad promises Jerry with a handshake, that they will sign with him for representation. He says something to the effect, "my word is stronger than oak". Not surprisingly, later we find his word is worthless, as he signs his son up with another agent.

It used to be that no one signed documents to make a deal...a handshake was all you needed and the word of honor. But today, we have pages and pages of legal papers that must be signed when any deal involves money.

It used to be, that ones signature, and the word of honor, was all one needed to rest assured he would be paid back. But today, a signature means nothing. Personal responsibility is a thought of the past. Society no longer applies moral code to itself. It is an "everyone for himself" world now.

When are we, as a society, going to say enough is enough? When are we going to stop this madness of looking to the government for bailouts? When are we, as Americans, going to bring back a moral code that stresses personal responsibility? Until we turn the tide and do this, expect more questions from home owners on Trulia, asking if it is all right to bail on a commitment they know they can fulfill.

We need to cut off the life line of taking the easy way out.

The Minnesota Association of Realtors put out a couple of videos this week regarding some short sale practices and the legal implications that could go along with them. It is really informative on what to be careful of, should you decide to be the buyer of a clients home, and then assign the contract to a third party. The process is common in short sales, but the problem arises when the Realtor is also the listing agent, and could be putting his interests ahead of his clients. Like always, transparancy is the keyword in these types of transaction.

I dove into the Stimulus Plan on the House Appropriations website to try and find out what kind of agreement the Senate and House of Representatives came to regarding the First Time Home Buyers Tax Credit. Not the most fun reading, but extremely important to know about for any serious real estate professional.

Currently, a taxpayer who is a first time home buyer (someone who has not owned a home within the previous three years) was allowed a refundable tax credit of the lessor values of $7500 or 10% of the purchase price of the home. The credit was allowed for homes purchased between April 9, 2008 to July 1, 2009. However it would have to be repaid, interest free, over a period of 15 years, or recaptured at the time of sale.

The stimulus package modifies the current rules, but also keeps the following in place:

• the tax credit phases out for individual tax payers you have a modified gross income of $75,000 to $95,000 ($150,000-$170,000 for joint filers)


• tax payers can claim the purchase of a home on their 2008 tax return (thus the reason for the credit beginning on December 31, 2008), even if they buy their home, for example in January of 2009

The new agreed to provisions that go into effect December 31, 2008 and are:

• extends the current home buyer tax credit for qualifying home purchases to December 1, 2009


• increases the maximum credit to $8000 ($4000 for a married person, filing separately)


• waives the recapture of this tax credit for homes bought between December 31, 2008 to December 1, 2009


• if the home is sold, or ceases to be the primary residence, within 36 months of the closed date, then the rules of recapturing the tax credit apply (currently over a time period of 15 years)

The part that really stinks about the revisions is for the first time home buyers who closed on their home between April 9, 2008 -December 30, 2008. It appears they will still need to repay the tax credit of $7500 over a period of 15 years, just as originally written, and none of the new revisions will apply to them.

Don't worry though, at least you get a tax credit. We closed on your new home in March 2008, and even though we are only 30 days out for qualifying, no soup for us!

Ok, I just cannot take it anymore.

I have sat on the sidelines, fuming, but keeping my mouth shut here on the web.But after last nights "show" from Mr. Obama, I have had enough. (by the way, I have given this guy two weeks to show me some true leadership, and since I lost all respect for him last night, I no longer will call him Mr. President...he doesn't deserve the title).

Wake up America!

Can you not see what is happening to our country?

When someone tells you that government is the only solution to your problems and when fear is invoked to get you to go along with policy, don't be surprised when you wake up in a few years and find yourself living in a socialist society.

Remember Stalin? He ruled by FEAR. Hitler ruled by FEAR. Mao ruled by FEAR. Now I am not saying that Obama is any of these guys, but you have to wonder what in the hell is going on, when in two weeks, we have seen more social policy crammed down our throats than I have seen in my lifetime. And every time I hear Obama speak, he tells us that all hope is lost if we don't follow him. If you hadn't noticed, he is ruling by fear, folks.

Are we so willing to roll over and bury our heads into the sand, let someone else deal with our problems? Have we become a nation of so much laziness that we won't take the time to voice our objection to bills that make no sense? Are we so willing to put this burden on our children and grandchildren...paying for the sins of the father? I look at my two toddlers and seriously want to cry at what they are going to have to face in 20 years.

Washington is committing the ultimate sin right now, going against everything this country was founded on. The founding fathers are probably rolling over in their graves.

Now I have to hear that the Dems are trying to sneak in a health care provision that will drastically change the way health care is treated in the United States! Talk about sneaky politics. Or how about moving the Census under the wing of the White House so that the Dems can redistrict states for more favorable outcomes in their elections. Does any of this scare you at all?

The fact is this, it is all happening before our very eyes, and if we allow our country to move to a more socialist state, the only person to blame is the one that looks you back in the mirror everyday.

Stop listening to the fear, and decide for YOURSELF what is the truth, not what someone tells you is the truth.

I just read an interesting article which predicts the next 15 companies that could likely fail in 2009. While some of them are no big surprise, like Chrysler, who should have failed decades ago, or Blockbuster, who has been struggling ever since online video rentals have taken off (I am an avid Netflix fan), some are rather surprising.

Well, OK. Krispy Kreme is really not that surprising. They over expanded in the United States and stretched themselves too thin. Sometimes, staying small is the best plan for long term survival. But one that I was surprised to see is Realogy, the largest real estate brokerage in the country:

"Realogy Corp. (Privately owned; about 13,000 employees). It's the biggest real-estate brokerage firm in the country, but that's a bad thing when there are double-digit declines in both sales and prices, as there were in 2009. Realogy, which includes the Coldwell Banker, ERA, and Sotheby's franchises, also carries a high debt load, dating to its purchase by the Apollo Group in 2007 - the very moment when the housing market was starting to invert from a soaring ride into a sickening nosedive. Realogy has been trying to refinance much of its debt, prompting lawsuits. One deal was denied by a judge in December, reducing the firm's already tight wiggle room."

It will be no surprise to me if some real estate brokerages go out of business in 2009 and 2010. Many just over expanded and overspent during the fat years, and left nothing for the lean years. I believe that the local Realtor association has said about 15% of the agents in town have left the business. While driving around town, I have seen many real estate offices up for sale, as they rush to downsize and save themselves.

The funny thing about this, to me at least, is it seems many people and businesses should have reread the Biblical story of Joseph. See Joseph could interpret dreams and when Pharaoh had one he couldn't decipher, Joseph came to the rescue and predicted that Egypt would see 7 years of famine after 7 years of feast. Their solution? Put some food aside during the seven years of plenty, so they would not suffer from hunger during the famine. Hmmm...there's a novel idea.

But so many businesses, including our local governments, saw the money flooding in and decided to build larger buildings, expand, grow, grow, grow, and were so blinded by the wealth they violated history, and are now paying for it. Cities in Minnesota are right now debating on whether to cut school funding and after school programs...because they are facing a budget deficit. You've got to be kidding me. I don't see them proposing to cut a few of those high paying government jobs instead.

Please, can someone answer how governments survived 5+ years ago, before the boom, on a budget, but cannot do it today?