All Forum Posts by: Jonathan R.

@Jonathan R. I get you think it is ridiculous. I get that some big players who are well aware of the market may do this and for them it is not an issue.  However, I also understand it is not always in the sellers best interest in the hands of unscrupulous agents.  They sell inhouse, get paid more, the seller gets less for the house because you may value relationships over the sellers financial interest when you sell based only on a relationship for a lesser price. 

You say …."I don't have to hit a home run on every deal, the NAR (National Association of Realtors) is asking us to waste people's time because I won't sell you're one off buyer client a house even if he outbids the person the house is intended for."      this is about the relator, what is the responsibility to the seller when you decide who the house is intended for?   

Realtors will find a work around for sure, but don't discount there is another point of view.

@Jonathan R. if your lower price sale doesn't benefit the seller what is the point? I agree that private sales should be okay but I have trouble reconciling that with the fact that as a relator the basic premise/big sell is put it on the MLS you' ll get the best price as a seller. Here you are saying you are accepting a lesser price .not a home run from your favorite buyer because they are repeat business to the relator. What about the seller? Are they still getting the best deal? That is where the rub is. As a seller I don't care who you think the house is intended for or who buys you a beer. As a buyer of course I may have different thoughts but there lies the conflict. This could be handled with clear disclosure but I am not sure that is always done.

Hi @Jonathan R., I think I agree with the heart behind your point here -- the relationship side of real estate is valuable.  For sure.

However, regulating the activity of people brokering real estate sales is a highly valuable thing for the public, and directly in the purview of the National Association of Realtors (or more relevantly the government body dealing with housing (HUD?), except the coexistence of HUD and NAR has led to an apparent specialization in the two -- HUD deals with accessibility and NAR deals with the administration of professionals in the space.

For the NAR to make this defining rule means that a real estate professional who has authorization to sell a home or market it for sale MUST disclose that fact to everyone. I get the "rub" that this can cause for favorite investors, but let's consider the counterpoint here:

- Come to my Coffee and Crushing It Club and (subtext: have exclusive access to my deals):  Club membership is $50/year.  

Reasonable enough, right?  Networking is key, and there is so much to be gained through these interactions but if pocket listings are an aspect to this then we've created a situation that is fraught with conflicts of interest.  The sellers of this real estate are not receiving due representation by the broker, the broker is leveraging the "off-market" aspect of the listing for personal gain, and other buyers, who aren't part of this club, are precluded from the opportunity to buy it.

The biggest question is my mind is not how can NAR do this, but how soon will HUD be right behind NAR on this issue? This is an accessibility and equality move as much as it is anything else.

Them's my thoughts. What do you think, Jonathan?

Hi @Jonathan R., I think I agree with the heart behind your point here -- the relationship side of real estate is valuable.  For sure.

However, regulating the activity of people brokering real estate sales is a highly valuable thing for the public, and directly in the purview of the National Association of Realtors (or more relevantly the government body dealing with housing (HUD?), except the coexistence of HUD and NAR has led to an apparent specialization in the two -- HUD deals with accessibility and NAR deals with the administration of professionals in the space.

For the NAR to make this defining rule means that a real estate professional who has authorization to sell a home or market it for sale MUST disclose that fact to everyone. I get the "rub" that this can cause for favorite investors, but let's consider the counterpoint here:

- Come to my Coffee and Crushing It Club and (subtext: have exclusive access to my deals):  Club membership is $50/year.  

Reasonable enough, right?  Networking is key, and there is so much to be gained through these interactions but if pocket listings are an aspect to this then we've created a situation that is fraught with conflicts of interest.  The sellers of this real estate are not receiving due representation by the broker, the broker is leveraging the "off-market" aspect of the listing for personal gain, and other buyers, who aren't part of this club, are precluded from the opportunity to buy it.

The biggest question is my mind is not how can NAR do this, but how soon will HUD be right behind NAR on this issue? This is an accessibility and equality move as much as it is anything else.

Them's my thoughts. What do you think, Jonathan?

I alway think inside my head, dang - a single family property would be so much more suited for this disabled vet suffering from PTSD than this apartment they are applying for. I don’t say that out loud though.  You can share what you have available but if the prospect chooses a multi-unit, you can’t deny them on the basis of the disability. Fair housing lawsuits have huge penalties attached. It’s not worth violating the law, even if you really think you are acting in the best interest of the vet - and your other tenants.   

@Greg M.-Noise is VERY difficult to evict for.  In most municipalities you have to meet a certain noise level, which has to be measured. If the cops are called and the tenant gets a disturbing the peace charge, you have some ammunition, but they generally won’t arrest for that without many, complaints.  You could then probably get possession for a law violation, but only if a Judge agrees. Sorry, but you can’t just evict someone because of noise. You need to wait until there is a concrete lease violation that is presentable to a Judge.