(If the video does not play correctly, switch video mode to HD in the embedded video player below)
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Monday, July 26, 2010
When Did We Stop Being Imaginative or Unique ?
As I rode around Charleston, South Carolina (by birth place) and looked at all the beautiful homes, I stopped for a moment and thought; when did America stop building such wonderful homes worthy of preservation for so many years than just "cookie cutter" styles homes that a builder knows will in time just be a "knock down" ? It seems that across America, middle class home architectural styles do not vary a great deal from "Colonial" style homes. I am not suggesting that individual neighborhoods or subdivisions be turned into a "hodge-podge" and there should be some harmonious blending of styles; however, it would be nice to see some more truly imaginative or unique home styles for the middle class across America.
From Provincial, Tudor, Revival, Colonial, Cottage, Victorian, etc; it seems we just copied every ones else's designs. Would a person, builder or architect in another country build a home that was [north] "American" style ?
From Provincial, Tudor, Revival, Colonial, Cottage, Victorian, etc; it seems we just copied every ones else's designs. Would a person, builder or architect in another country build a home that was [north] "American" style ?
Saturday, July 10, 2010
The American Dream (of homeownership) & Illegal Immigration
Yes, there most definitely is a connection between the two!
The United States is one of the only 233 countries in the world that I know of that allows a non-citizen to own real estate! For example, while a Mexican or Indonesian national or citizen (with legal presence here in the U.S.) can buy and own real property in the United States; an American or U.S. Citizen cannot own or buy real property in fee simple or own it as a freehold estate (absolute ownership) in Mexico nor Indonesia. I venture to say that an American citizen cannot own real property anywhere else in the world for that matter either.
The point is; is that if nearly every country in the world has very strict immigration AND real property ownership laws or requirements, then why in the world (pun intended) does the Unites States allow nearly any foreigner to purchase and own real property here or chase the proverbial "pursuit of the American Dream" ?! Doesn't this in fact spur or encourage more mass legal AND illegal immigration ? Sure it does. There is a direct and proximate corollary between MASS immigration to the United States and home ownership or that pursuit of the American dream - which is in essence or equates to, OWNING a piece of America or U.S. soil.
My mother is from Mexico and resides in the United States as a legal permanent resident. She owns a house outright (with no mortgage) and in essence owns a piece of the United States; albeit a relatively small parcel but a piece of U.S. soil nonetheless. Could I as an American Citizen (born here in the U.S.) own a property in Mexico or own a piece of Mexican soil ? Hell no !! Not in the true sense of "ownership" in fee simple absolute as we know it here; without having to use some sort of trustee, intermediary, or nominee - which of course would further convolute the purchase, acquisition or true "ownership" of the property.
I might be able to acquire some sort of right of use or leasehold estate for a certain number of years in another country, but not true and absolute ownership or the "full bundle of sticks" of complete ownership of the property where I could pass it on to my heirs, etc. and not be encumbered by or with a trustee or nominee to further complicate things . And in other countries, the government can just claim "eminent domain" over a foreign owner's property with little to no recourse by the foreign homeowner; unlike here in the States.
It's such an ironic and warped twist that Mexico claims the United States has "xenophobia" (the fear of foreigners) but in reality Mexico's xenophobia is far worse.
As twisted as this may sound, one way of achieving that objective would be to pass laws or enact an Amendment to the United States Constitution which banned or prohibited home ownership from anyone who was not a citizen of the United States. I would even take it a step further and say that the "citizen" must be a natural born citizen of the United States. This would prevent someone (yes even like my mother) who resides here in the U.S. as a permanent resident or with other eligible immigration status from owning a property. If they want to do that, then they need to become a NATURALIZED citizens of the United States, giving up their original nationality, or wait for the next generation of children who are born here in the U.S. and are natural citizens to own property. Stop allowing people to have "the best of both worlds" - one foot in, and one foot out. Would other countries allow American citizens to do this ?? Permanent resident status yes, but own real estate or truly and absolutely own a piece or parcel of another country too? Probably NOT!
The United States is one of the only 233 countries in the world that I know of that allows a non-citizen to own real estate! For example, while a Mexican or Indonesian national or citizen (with legal presence here in the U.S.) can buy and own real property in the United States; an American or U.S. Citizen cannot own or buy real property in fee simple or own it as a freehold estate (absolute ownership) in Mexico nor Indonesia. I venture to say that an American citizen cannot own real property anywhere else in the world for that matter either.
The point is; is that if nearly every country in the world has very strict immigration AND real property ownership laws or requirements, then why in the world (pun intended) does the Unites States allow nearly any foreigner to purchase and own real property here or chase the proverbial "pursuit of the American Dream" ?! Doesn't this in fact spur or encourage more mass legal AND illegal immigration ? Sure it does. There is a direct and proximate corollary between MASS immigration to the United States and home ownership or that pursuit of the American dream - which is in essence or equates to, OWNING a piece of America or U.S. soil.
My mother is from Mexico and resides in the United States as a legal permanent resident. She owns a house outright (with no mortgage) and in essence owns a piece of the United States; albeit a relatively small parcel but a piece of U.S. soil nonetheless. Could I as an American Citizen (born here in the U.S.) own a property in Mexico or own a piece of Mexican soil ? Hell no !! Not in the true sense of "ownership" in fee simple absolute as we know it here; without having to use some sort of trustee, intermediary, or nominee - which of course would further convolute the purchase, acquisition or true "ownership" of the property.
I might be able to acquire some sort of right of use or leasehold estate for a certain number of years in another country, but not true and absolute ownership or the "full bundle of sticks" of complete ownership of the property where I could pass it on to my heirs, etc. and not be encumbered by or with a trustee or nominee to further complicate things . And in other countries, the government can just claim "eminent domain" over a foreign owner's property with little to no recourse by the foreign homeowner; unlike here in the States.
It's such an ironic and warped twist that Mexico claims the United States has "xenophobia" (the fear of foreigners) but in reality Mexico's xenophobia is far worse.
In the United States, only two posts — the presidency and vice presidency — are reserved for the native born. In Mexico, non-natives are banned from those and thousands of other jobs, even if they are legal, naturalized citizens. Foreign-born Mexicans can't hold seats in either house of the congress. They're also banned from state legislatures, the Supreme Court and all governorships. Many states ban foreign-born Mexicans from spots on town councils. And Mexico's Constitution reserves almost all federal posts, and any position in the military and merchant marine, for "native-born Mexicans." Recently the Mexican government has gone even further. Since at least 2003, it has encouraged cities to ban non-natives from such local jobs as firefighters, police and judges.America needs to WAKE UP and realize that cries of racism and xenophobia are nothing but lies that even the name-callers don't believe. It's too late now and the horse (actually the entire herd) is already out of the barn or stable, but imagine what this country could have been like if we took a much stronger stand on MASS legal AND illegal immigration and property ownership rights here in the United States. Am I a racist or a "minuteman" type with xenophobias of my own? Absolutely not! I come from a bi-cultural family and my wife is from Indonesia. There is not a more culturally aware and appreciative person than myself; however, America is no longer a frontier nation and MASS immigration (both legal AND illegal) must stop!!
As twisted as this may sound, one way of achieving that objective would be to pass laws or enact an Amendment to the United States Constitution which banned or prohibited home ownership from anyone who was not a citizen of the United States. I would even take it a step further and say that the "citizen" must be a natural born citizen of the United States. This would prevent someone (yes even like my mother) who resides here in the U.S. as a permanent resident or with other eligible immigration status from owning a property. If they want to do that, then they need to become a NATURALIZED citizens of the United States, giving up their original nationality, or wait for the next generation of children who are born here in the U.S. and are natural citizens to own property. Stop allowing people to have "the best of both worlds" - one foot in, and one foot out. Would other countries allow American citizens to do this ?? Permanent resident status yes, but own real estate or truly and absolutely own a piece or parcel of another country too? Probably NOT!
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Should "MLS" (Multiple Listing Service) Be Trademarked ?
I actually cannot believe that it is not trademarked! Just as the moniker of "Realtor" is a trademark (which merely means that a real estate licensee is a member of the National Association of Realtors or NAR), so too should the term "MLS" (Multiple Listing Service) be a unique trademark and not a broad generic term used by anyone who aggregates or publishes lists of real properties for sale or lease.
The term "MLS" should be reserved for only licensed real estate professionals. The generic use of this term by unlicensed groups, individuals or entities is not only misleading the public to believe or have the impression that the listing site is run by knowledgeable and licensed real estate professionals; but can also be a violation of state laws regarding the advertising of real property for sale or lease. Generally, state laws stipulate that anyone who “lists or offers or agrees to list real estate for sale, lease, rental or exchange (or) assists or directs in the procuring of prospects” is a real estate broker. The law requires brokers to be licensed by the state.
The basis for this or the underlying foundation is to protect the public from harm, fraud or incompetence that could come about in a bad transaction with an unlicensed non-professional where giving poor or incorrect advise on matters could be potentially serious and harmful. Cases in point: not advising someone about potential lead-based paint hazards, occupancy standards (# of people per size of dwelling), using a lower level area for sleeping or as a "bedroom" where there in no means of ingress/egress in the event of fire; "steering", redlining or blockbusting where violations of Fair Housing occurs, etc. There are some exceptions to state laws however for property managers or for publications, such as a newspaper, where advertising real estate is “incidental” to a larger business.
There have been many recent court cases involving web based listing services; ForSaleByOwner.com, ZeroBrokerFees.com, and ISoldMyHouse.com where the legal issue of whether or not these "MLS" type of repositories or "services" where substantively engaged in "real estate brokerage activities" for which a license is required. The proliferation of such "MLS" type of websites not only cuts into Realtors' business; but more importantly is potentially harmful to the public by placing consumers of real estate sales or lease transactions in the hands of individuals, groups or entities that lack proper training and knowledge of the complexities involved in a real estate transaction.
Therefore, I vehemently believe that the National Association of Realtors (NAR) should be aggressively seeking to trademark the term "MLS" so that it is not a watered-down broad or generic term; but when "MLS" is used, it does give the public the sense that such a web-based site or service is run or operated by a professionally licensed real estate practitioner or broker.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)