Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not to single your response out, because there are several others along these lines, but anyone who has studied constitutional law at all knows that everything effectively involves interstate commerce.
Dang it...you found me out. This whole time my byline has been "Real Estate agent and Constitutional Law Expert." I guess I'm going to have to change that.
Roads are infrastructure so that is a different argument, in my opinion. Chief Justice John Marshall in 1824 stated, when defining interstate commerce..It did not include "that commerce, which is completely internal, which is carried on between man and man in a State, or between different parts of the same State, and which does not extend to or effect other States.
So where that leaves you is that if two Oregonians want to exchange property it is NOT interstate commerce and the feds have on jurisdiction. What are you going to do, have two sets of rules?? If a New Yorker wants to buy property in Oregon then they follow the federal rules, but local citizens aren't subject to them...Seems messy to me. I don't see the states giving up their autonomy to the feds anytime soon.
Darstar brought up this argument in relation to regulations facing the practice/license of real estate agents. He used the example of travel agents. Someone could be a travel agent in New York and book a plane ticket for someone living in Oregon. Darstar's argument (how I interpreted it anyway) was that a real estate agent in NY should be able to engage in the purchase and sale of a property in Oregon as a licensee. Essentially, darstar's argument is that there should be a national license/regulations and agents could practice in any state whatsoever.
What I am saying is that I think that it is not in the best interest of the consumer to have an agent in NY writing up a contract for a house in Oregon that they have never seen. Even if you have a national license/regulations, each still still has autonomy and WILL continue to have it's own subculture. State laws are driven by these subcultures. I think if there were national licensees then lawsuits would abound. I live in Oregon and I only cover a territory that is within 30 minutes of me. I can't know all the individual city requirements for more than that.
Attorneys can't just practice in any state they want. They have to pass the bar for the state and the bar exams are all different. Real estate is similar in that regard.
I agree that some consistency would be nice, especially with regard to agency relationships, but deregulation is not the answer. If that were the case, deregulate the attorneys as well. Make it a free for all. Consumers WILL get screwed in the process.
Going back to a client who has a short amount of time to see maybe 20 homes over a weekend and I've got hundreds in the MLS to choose from, FSBO's are pretty far down the list of homes that get chosen to even view.
It may take hours to review the hundreds of homes in the MLS which doesn't allow much time to chase down a home owner who 80% of the time doesn't want to talk to an agent.
Time is money & the MLS provides a much better resource of homes.
Dang it...you found me out. This whole time my byline has been "Real Estate agent and Constitutional Law Expert." I guess I'm going to have to change that.
I like that one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silverfall
Roads are infrastructure so that is a different argument, in my opinion. Chief Justice John Marshall in 1824 stated, when defining interstate commerce..It did not include "that commerce, which is completely internal, which is carried on between man and man in a State, or between different parts of the same State, and which does not extend to or effect other States.
So where that leaves you is...
Where that leaves you is in 1824.
Con law has changed drastically since then. Heck, I don't think the word "penumbra" had even appeared in a legal opinion at that time (I could be wrong about that, but the point remains). (Penumbra is a con law rationale that says "even though the constitution didn't give the feds the power to regulate that issue, since the issue is related to an issue that they can regulate, it is fair game.") There certainly was no so-called constitutional right to abortion in 1824. So a lot has happened. But I digress.
The thrust of my part of this federal regulation discussion is that the feds could regulate it if they wanted to. A study of constitutional law will reveal that the definition of interstate commerce has been twisted, folded, stretched and bent to all extremes to permit the federal government to exercise authority over things that were previously thought of as local law issues.
I don't necessarily disagree with your point that licensing real estate agents locally is better than having some sort of national license. (Of course a federal regulation scheme could include local licensing as a requirement.)
I know the agent flames will soon follow, but agents and lawyers are apples and oranges. State laws vary, which is presumably why lawyers are licensed by state. Agents, so far as I know, are not charged with knowing state laws. In fact, they are not permitted to allow others to rely on their knowledge of laws. So that same rationale doesn't apply. Not saying that state licensing isn't the way to go, but just commenting on your tying agent licensing to attorney licensing. But I wouldn't argue that the feds do not have the power to regulate attorneys, too.
Interestingly, after practicing a certain amount of time in some states, attorneys can waive into the licensing requirements of other states without taking that state's bar exam. Wonder if there is any similar rule for agents.
Going back to a client who has a short amount of time to see maybe 20 homes over a weekend and I've got hundreds in the MLS to choose from, FSBO's are pretty far down the list of homes that get chosen to even view.
It may take hours to review the hundreds of homes in the MLS which doesn't allow much time to chase down a home owner who 80% of the time doesn't want to talk to an agent.
Time is money & the MLS provides a much better resource of homes.
Well in that case, who needs an agent? What's the web address for the Austin MLS again?
Seriously, though, it would seem obvious that an agent's responsibility is not fully carried out if the agent simply prints up some MLS listings. (And why are you reviewing the whole MLS? Doesn't your buyer have any preferences that can narrow down the list to less than "the hundreds of homes in the MLS"? You know, there are automated searches now that are really great tools!)
The buyer wants you to help them find their new home, not to help them find a home that appears on the MLS. But I understand natural tendencies. I once had an agent tell me to narrow my list down to 7 properties and then he would work with me. Hahaha.
AW, say what you want but reality is FSBO's are pretty low on the list of homes that will be shown to a client. That is the choice they've made in selling their homes.
If they want to open their home to thousands of agents they should at least invest in a flat fee broker. It's kinda like an individual representing himself in a lawsuit, you get what you pay for.
That brings up a point.... with the Internet and access to on line legal documents, why would anyone hire an attorney to draw up a will or other legal documents?
Dang it...you found me out. This whole time my byline has been "Real Estate agent and Constitutional Law Expert." I guess I'm going to have to change that.
Roads are infrastructure so that is a different argument, in my opinion. Chief Justice John Marshall in 1824 stated, when defining interstate commerce..It did not include "that commerce, which is completely internal, which is carried on between man and man in a State, or between different parts of the same State, and which does not extend to or effect other States.
So where that leaves you is that if two Oregonians want to exchange property it is NOT interstate commerce and the feds have on jurisdiction. What are you going to do, have two sets of rules?? If a New Yorker wants to buy property in Oregon then they follow the federal rules, but local citizens aren't subject to them...Seems messy to me. I don't see the states giving up their autonomy to the feds anytime soon.
Darstar brought up this argument in relation to regulations facing the practice/license of real estate agents. He used the example of travel agents. Someone could be a travel agent in New York and book a plane ticket for someone living in Oregon. Darstar's argument (how I interpreted it anyway) was that a real estate agent in NY should be able to engage in the purchase and sale of a property in Oregon as a licensee. Essentially, darstar's argument is that there should be a national license/regulations and agents could practice in any state whatsoever.
What I am saying is that I think that it is not in the best interest of the consumer to have an agent in NY writing up a contract for a house in Oregon that they have never seen. Even if you have a national license/regulations, each still still has autonomy and WILL continue to have it's own subculture. State laws are driven by these subcultures. I think if there were national licensees then lawsuits would abound. I live in Oregon and I only cover a territory that is within 30 minutes of me. I can't know all the individual city requirements for more than that.
Attorneys can't just practice in any state they want. They have to pass the bar for the state and the bar exams are all different. Real estate is similar in that regard.
I agree that some consistency would be nice, especially with regard to agency relationships, but deregulation is not the answer. If that were the case, deregulate the attorneys as well. Make it a free for all. Consumers WILL get screwed in the process.
Since I was referenced , I feel the need to comment, again.....
First , look up Carmack, that is the basis for what we are talking about. The transportation industry has already went thru this. Intrastate regulations have gone by the wayside. It all started in 1980 , and progressed from there. It was a long hard battle, but , in the end , or better yet today , we have almost all transportation deregulated. What little regulation is left is often ignored, the ICC is an agency of the past. Property brokers, everywhere , interstate and intrastate , are still required to post a bond , but , many , just call themselves , agents , freight forwarders , or whatever, and skip the formalities. .....real estate is next , look at what is happening around the country, the industry is not helping matters, by trying to regulate in and for their own interest.
Unless we see a trend , back to a more regulated America, I see the real estate market as the next target. There will always be regulation , at lest in the mortgage end, cause the practices are so abused. Look for more of that , and , it will come at the Federal level, as , almost every transaction in Real Estate , involves funding on a national scale...... I for one , would rather deal with one "agency" , than 50 of them, that can't seem to get their rules and regs. compatible
If the MLS is the " bible" , then everyone should be able to use it. FSBO , agents, brokers , whatever.. If Ebay wants to ( and they do ), become a national auction house for home sales , it will happen. There are others as well. At first , a lot of folks will get into the game , but most will fall by the wayside , when the dust settles. The strong will survive , and , so will the small Realtors, agents , and individuals who have flexibility. .
The same non performance that comes from FSBO , can be applied to Realtors. This subject could go on forever. I can see the Realtors side , as I have been a Professional in my trade of transportation brokerage for over 40 years. When deregulation came in for our industry in 1980 , where were lots of debates. The outcome , has been mixed, however, we all learned to work with it. The bottom line is , we live in a deregulated world , buyer-seller beware. The best we can hope for , is, that no one industry creates a monopoly , and hampers the ability of the individual to succeed. We federal oversite , thats all.
No doubt there are some Realtors that should not be in the business and are actually worse at handling a home sale than some FSBO's.
That is why I wish everyone that chooses to use a Realtor would ask friends and neighbors for referrals. After a while this would weed out many of the bad agents.
Unfortunately many people just open the phone book and don't do a good job of interviewing when the agents do come out. The bad agents still get weeded out it just takes longer and the next batch of new agents are bound to have some bad apples.
AW, say what you want but reality is FSBO's are pretty low on the list of homes that will be shown to a client. That is the choice they've made in selling their homes. [emphasis added]
I guess there is the answer for the OP, if Rakin is any indication. No, generally speaking, agents do not put FSBO properties on an equal level with MLS listed properties.
Without restating my opinion as to whether that is good or bad, I think the sentiment expressed by Rankin is indicative of whether the agents that shun FSBOs are more interested in protecting their turf than working in the best interest of their client.
No doubt there are some Realtors that should not be in the business and are actually worse at handling a home sale than some FSBO's.
That is why I wish everyone that chooses to use a Realtor would ask friends and neighbors for referrals. After a while this would weed out many of the bad agents.
Unfortunately many people just open the phone book and don't do a good job of interviewing when the agents do come out. The bad agents still get weeded out it just takes longer and the next batch of new agents are bound to have some bad apples.
Yes, there are a lot of industries that are like this. Mine included. It is just extremely difficult to get enough information from an interview to really know whether an agent will do a good job. I agree with you that referrals are the best way for the consumer to protect itself. (Of course, it's only as good as the judgment of the person making the referral. )
No doubt there are some Realtors that should not be in the business and are actually worse at handling a home sale than some FSBO's.
That is why I wish everyone that chooses to use a Realtor would ask friends and neighbors for referrals. After a while this would weed out many of the bad agents.
Unfortunately many people just open the phone book and don't do a good job of interviewing when the agents do come out. The bad agents still get weeded out it just takes longer and the next batch of new agents are bound to have some bad apples.
I have tried that , the interviews , on and on , same stuff from all , but , little substance. When it came time ( too late, because of the market ) , I made a bad choice. Should have just gone it alone from the start. I showed my property 20 times in six month. The Realtor, not once !, I went back to my own convictions , and creative resources ,...... and got it sold , for cash. end of story.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I like that one. 
)
