I got an anonymous and somewhat derogatory email from a person who was pretty indignant about my previous blog post. One of his or her many points was "In my entire career, I've never seen a real estate firm post a "negative" about a building. The article states that removing the lock boxes will cause home values to decline. No, what will cause it to decline is a negative blog posting that will never be removed from the internet once it's indexed in all the browsers."
I'd like to respond.
First of all, I believe that we real estate agents have a responsibility to speak objectively. Those agents who "sugar coat" things or never write a "negative" about a building aren't doing themselves or the buildings any favors. The public is looking for reliable information. The public also knows that there are several sides to every story. If an agent only paints a pretty picture then his or her opinion will not be trusted. Or at least that is my opinion. I instead write things the way I see them. If I really like something I say so. If I think something doesn't make sense, I write that too. Because of this people value my opinion and often hire me as their agent.
Secondly, I hardly see how a blog post about lock box policies can hurt condo values more than the actual policy itself. Gang, if you believe that in order to get the highest price possible for your condominium it is better to show it to 50 prospects than 5 prospects then you should understand my point that interfering with agent showings of the condos is bad for values. Is it possible for agents to show the condos if they have to make appointments with every single listing agent? Of course. Does it hamper and impede showings? Absolutely.
Let's put this on a personal level. Let's say I'm showing properties to a client who lives out of state. I show them Camelview Village, I show them Galleries at Turney, I show them Scottsdale Waterfront, and I want to show your condo for sale at Biltmore Towers. Unfortunately, for some reason your agent is not available to meet with us to show us the condo at a time that works for my clients. Well, guess what? We won't see your condo. That's reality.
Here's another example of what I mean. Let's say you want to buy a car and you visit a car lot that has a unique new concept that allows individual car owners to sell their cars on that lot "on consignment." In this case, the lot manager doesn't own the cars and doesn't have keys to the vehicles and for security purposes locks each car up in its own private garage. For a prospective buyer to see a car he or she has to schedule an appointment with the individual owner. If the buyer wants to see multiple cars on the lot he or she has to schedule multiple appointments. Pretty cumbersome huh? Can I imagine cars actually selling? Sure. But who is most likely to sell thier car first and for the highest price? Probably the seller who is most available to show his or her car at any given moment. In contrast, the car owner who is the least available to show his or her car will have a much harder time getting it sold. In fact, I would argue that the car owner who is least available to show his or her car will ultimately have to lower the price in order to entice buyers to work around the seller's schedule.
I'm sure you would agree that a car lot like my make believe example wouldn't work very well and yet that is the environment what the HOA at Biltmore Towers is creating by outlawing lock boxes. Again, I understand the importance of security. But for heaven's sake, lock boxes are used across this country and they are secure. Certainly, there is a better solution for a modern high rise building than to ban lock boxes. Other buildings have figured out solutions that offer a higher level of security for their residents AND a reasonable level of access for real estate agents.
I'm sorry that I ticked some of you off but in the long run I think you'll be grateful if posts like this motivates the HOA to find a more flexible and secure solution.
Comments(1)