Publications

Phillip C. Querin
Partner - Portland, Oregon Office

philquerin@dwt.com
(503) 241-2300

Events & Trends
[January 2006]

Introduction¹

2005 was a watershed year. The business of real estate brokerage has been evolving from a traditional, homogenous, and relatively slow moving industry, to a fast-paced, cutting edge, and exciting profession. The operative word is “change,” which, for some, is viewed as good, and others as bad. But regardless of your opinion, it is indisputable that the landscape is changing and survival requires a full understanding of what these changes mean, both in danger and opportunity.

The purpose of this material is threefold: (1) Discuss important events of 2005; (2) Address the trends that these events foreshadow; and, (3) Suggest how Realtors® may wish to deal with these events and trends in their own strategic planning.

EVENTS

Fannie Mae

At the end of 2004, this huge government sponsored enterprise (GSE), which has dominated the secondary mortgage market for years, was in trouble for its accounting irregularities, which were not insubstantial. As a GSE, Fannie Mae has not been held to the same reporting requirements as other publicly traded companies, which some believe has enabled them to escape the necessary oversight that resulted in manipulating their earnings reports. As a result, Fannie Mae has now had to restate their earning by $9 billion over the last 4 years. In 2005, Congress held hearings, and the House of Representatives passed a bill designed to reduce the portfolios of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But perhaps the biggest repercussion occurred in the stock market. In 2005, their stock plummeted 31.50%, from $71.27 per share to $48.81/share. However, there are several critics, including the White House, who feel that congressional efforts have been too timid. Currently, legislation is stalled in Congress and some question whether anything of substance will really happen.

The Take Away – In 2006 GSEs, especially Fannie and Freddie, will continue to be under the microscope. Their original core mission will be questioned and it is likely that increased legislative oversight will subject them to the same regulatory disclosure obligations as other publicly traded companies. In other words, they will move toward more privatization so that they are forced to compete on the same playing field as non-GSEs. There will be a push to reduce their investment portfolio as well as their share of the secondary mortgage market business. ~ Q

Banks and Real Estate

For the last several years, banks have lusted after the real estate brokerage business. Getting into the industry would allow them to be the first point of contact in the home-buying process, ahead of Realtors®. For several years, NAR has lobbied for legislation to permanently keep banks out of real estate. Each year, the legislation gets pared down to a one-year moratorium. On November 30, 2005 President Bush signed the Transportation, Treasury and HUD spending bill, which contains another one-year prohibition against the Federal Reserve Board/Treasury proposal that would have allowed banks to operate real estate brokerage, leasing and property management businesses.

The Take Away – The Realtor® industry is currently under fire. As discussed below, in 2005 the US Department of Justice filed suit against the NAR alleging that their anti-competitive practices stifle consumer choice. The banking industry is now arguing that it is precisely because of these alleged practices that they should be permitted entry, so the consumer will have more options. Until the DOJ lawsuit is resolved, it is unlikely in 2006 that even NAR, with its powerful lobby, will be able to convince Congress that banks should be permanently barred from the brokerage business. ~ Q

The DOJ Lawsuit Against NAR

On September 8, 2005 NAR was sued by the United States Department of Justice for alleged violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The lawsuit seeks to enjoin NAR from maintaining or enforcing policies that, according to the Amended Complaint filed on October 8, 2005, “…restrain competition from brokers who use the Internet to more efficiently and cost effectively serve home sellers and buyers….” The DOJ believes that the brokers targeted by NAR’s policies are primarily those who operate websites that enable their customers to search for and obtain listings over the Internet. It is these alternative web-savvy business models that the DOJ believes provide “…an important competitive alternative to traditional ‘brick-and-mortar’ business models.”

This lawsuit was not unexpected. In an effort to address the increasing number of business models that were primarily located on the Internet – many of which offered discounted fees for reduced service – NAR developed its virtual office website (or “VOW”) policy. The most controversial aspect of the policy was its opt-out provisions, which permitted brokerages to opt out, either on a blanket basis (i.e. not permit any of its listings to be shown on other participants’ websites) or on a selective basis (i.e. to pick and choose which of their competitors’ websites could display their listings). Realtor® MLSs were told by NAR that the VOW policy was mandatory. Those companies that felt NAR’s VOW policy could be used to target their new form of business, i.e. the discount models, complained to the DOJ.

On September 8, 2005, in an effort to fashion a less objectionable Internet policy, and to placate the DOJ, NAR modified its VOW policy, enacting an Internet Listing Display (or “ILD”) policy, which eliminated selective opt-outs but retained a modified form of blanket opt-outs. The U.S. Department of Justice was not satisfied. On the same day that NAR enacted its ILD policy, the DOJ filed suit. Since the initial lawsuit was directed primarily at the now-rescinded VOW policy, the DOJ filed an Amended Complaint alleging that it “… challenges both policies in this action as part of a single, ongoing contract, combination, or conspiracy.”

On December 6, 2005 NAR filed a motion to dismiss that portion of the Amended Complaint that deals with the old VOW policy, since it is no longer in effect. They have also challenged the DOJ’s attack on the opt-out provisions contained in its new ILD policy, asserting that NAR members are not being encouraged to select one course of action over another, and as such, they exercise their own independent judgment in making any opt-out decisions.

The Take Away – In 2006 we will see a certain amount of posturing by both sides. Ultimately, it will likely end up in a settlement – sooner rather than later – in which each side will give up a little to get a little. The result will probably be some form of “VOW-lite” policy, which will permit NAR to retain a certain amount of control over access to Internet listing data, though less than it is now. The alternative – grinding and costly litigation – is an unsatisfactory result for both sides. ~ Q

New Business Models and State Regulators

In 2005, new business models continued to flourish on the Internet. These included fixed fee companies, discount brokerages offering consumer rebates, for-sale-by-owner websites, and everything in between. How much of an impact these new business models made on the traditional brokerage model remains to be seen; the low or fixed fee commission structure works better in a hot sellers’ market, but how this formula will fare when home sales resume a more normal pace remains to be seen.

However, the complaint raised by some full-service companies is that when dealing with sellers whose representation has been contractually limited by their broker, buyer agents must risk either (a) assisting the seller and becoming a dual agent, or (b) not assisting and jeopardizing the success of the transaction. The result in 2005 was a clash between limited service brokers and state reg ulators. The DOJ and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) have warned legislators in several states not to pass minimum service legislation they say could restrict competition by limiting the ability of some alternative brokerage models to conduct business. In 2005, more than 12 states had minimum service legislation proposed or passed which requires brokers to accept and present all offers and counteroffers and to answer client questions.

The Take Away - Due to market forces, antitrust considerations and especially the DOJ lawsuit, limited service brokers will continue to exist and flourish in the foreseeable future. There will be an uneasy truce between traditional and nontraditional models – at least until the lawsuit is resolved. As discussed in Trends, below, one must wonder about the long-term success of such models. They must capture and maintain market share in an increasingly crowded and innovative business environment. And as the real estate market changes, so will consumer needs and expectations. In 2006 we will get a better look at whether some of the alternative business models can adapt as the market cools down. ~ Q

 
Online Lead Generation

2005 witnessed the continued onslaught of online lead generators. While they come in different shapes and sizes, most are fee-based. Some charge Realtors® on a per-click basis and some are subscription, and some take a percentage of the fee at closing. The industry’s main criticism of all of them is that they do not add any real “value” to the real estate transaction. Yet many agents use them, thus reducing their net commissions. Now, finally, some of the largest franchise companies have realized that this business model is a service they can provide in-house to their own agents. Using their own company brand, they can increase agent retention and loyalty.

The Take Away – Online lead generation is simply a product of the Internet, where consumer information has become a commodity for re-sale. In 2006 and beyond, more real estate companies will recognize the value of using their own brand to become the first point of contact with the consumer. It remains to be seen whether these companies will attempt to make lead generation a profit center for themselves, or whether they will provide it free of charge to their agents for retention and loyalty. ~ Q

Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”)

RESPA was created in 1974 to protect consumers by making the closing process more transparent and understandable. It also contained prohibitions against the payment of kickbacks by settlement providers, such as title companies and real estate agents. In 2005 RESPA was in the news on two fronts: Increasing regulatory action against title companies, Realtors®, and other settlement providers, and continued faltering in reform. Last year saw millions of dollars in fines levied against some of the largest title companies and real estate brokerages for violations of the anti-kickback provisions of the law. Usually the violations were based upon sham Affiliated Business Arrangements or discounted benefits given to Realtors® which were really disguised kickbacks for the referral of business. And like the weather, everyone talked about RESPA reform, but nobody could do anything about it.

The Take Away – RESPA is an antiquated and arcane law that has more holes than a slice of swiss cheese. Today, with the increasing demand for one-stop-shopping in realty services, most settlement providers, such as title companies and real estate brokerages, have very little incentive to tighten up RESPA. In 2006 look for an increasing demand for more realistic laws designed to permit the consolidation of settlement services. There will be a move to improve the Good Faith Estimate provisions of the law in order to prevent lender abuse. ~ Q

Measure 37

On the local front, Measure 37, which was passed by over 60% of the voters in November 2004, put lawyers and land use experts on the speakers’ circuit in 2005. In short, the law permitted claimants to seek compensation from certain public entities because of a loss in value to their property as a result of certain restrictive land use regulations that were enacted after they, or their families, became owners of land.

Measure 37 permitted claims only if the restriction resulted in a reduction of the property’s fair market value. In lieu of payment, the governing body could decide to modify, remove, or not apply the offending regulation – i.e. to allow the owner to use the property for a use permitted at the time the owner, or their family predecessor, acquired the property. There was never any doubt but that the state, counties and cities did not have the funds to pay claims. Thus, if an owner had a strong Measure 37 claim, there was a greater likelihood that the restriction would be waived.

Exceptions to the law included regulations that: (1) were enacted to restrict public nuisances; (2) were enacted to restrict pornography or nude dancing; (3) were enacted for health and safety reasons; (4) were enacted pursuant to federal laws; or (5) were enacted prior to the date of acquisition by the present owner or his/her family member who owned the property, whichever occurred first.

Most people believed that the real battleground over Measure 37 would either be in the Legislature or the courts. 2005 confirmed that the politicians did not have the will or the skill to fix some of the inherent problems with the law. Then, on October 14, 2005, a Marion County Circuit Court Judge declared Measure 37 unconstitutional in MacPherson v. Department of Administrative Services. The case was immediately appealed to the Oregon Supreme Court.

Here’s where we are today: (1) The State of Oregon is not accepting any Measure 37 claims submitted on or after October 25, 2005.  (2) For those claims that the State had received but not acted on before October 25, 2005, the claim will be held in abeyance pending the outcome of the appeal of the MacPherson case. (3) As for those claims that the State had acted on prior to October 25, 2005, the Attorney General’s office believes that those decisions to waive the state law will have no legal effect, pending the outcome of the MacPherson appeal.  The State also believes that local governments are not authorized to approve uses of property that require state waivers.² On January 10, 2006, the Oregon Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the appeal. Although a decision is expected momentarily, none has been issued as of the date of this writing.

The Take Away – The conventional wisdom is that the Marion County Circuit Court decision will be overturned and some or all of Measure 37 will be reinstated. What remains to be seen is whether additional court action will be necessary to correct some of the inherent flaws in the law. Some observers have suggested that what is in order is a system to review potential initiatives, such as Measure 37, before they are voted on, in order to avoid “…the current cycle of adoption, challenge, and invalidation.” ³ ~ Q

Kelo v. City of New London

In 2005, this case received widespread national attention, and spurred several states to reexamine a change in their condemnation laws to prevent a Kelo result. In this decision by the United States Supreme Court, a bare majority of the Justices (5 to 4) upheld the exercise of a city’s eminent domain power for the purpose of economic revitalization of a portion of the town of New London, Connecticut.

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the taking of private property for public use without the payment of just compensation. In Kelo, t he city of New London sought to revitalize the depressed Fort Trumbull neighborhood. A d evelopment plan was created that included a resort hotel, conference center, a new state park, 80–100 new residences, and research, office, and retail space. Of the existing 115 residential and commercial lots in the neighborhood, 15 of the owners refused to sell their homes to the city’s development corporation.

The significance of Kelo is that the Supreme Court upheld the use of the U. S. Constitution’s eminent domain power, finding that the “public use” requirement of the Fifth Amendment was met even though the ultimate use would be for privatedevelopment. In other words, the Court essentially concluded that the “public use” requirement of the Fifth Amendment was satisfied by a “public purpose,” i.e. economic revitalization, even though it would be through private development.

To date, the Kelo plaintiffs have continued to express an intent to fight the decision, presumably by now contesting the fairness of the amount offered for their land. However, the wider effect of the case remains to be seen, since several states (8) already prohibit the use of eminent domain power for econonic redevelopment except to eliminate blight, and it is expected that several more will follow suit, including Alabama, California, Florida, Michigan, New Jersey and Texas.

The Take Away – With the politicians looking for election year causes,⁴ and so many states lining up behind Justice O’Connor’s dissenting opinion, when she worried that the majority’s approach would permit cities to act in a “reverse Robin Hood” fashion, the likely effect of Kelo will be negligible, at best. Going forward, most cities will look very closely at their economic redevelopment plans where private use is involved, and thoroughly exhaust all other alternatives before resorting to the laws of eminent domain. ~ Q

 
The 2005 Real Estate Market – It Was A Very Good Year

2005 was a banner year for the Portland Metropolitan area real estate market, as well as many other regions throughout the country. According to the RMLS™ Market Action Report, 2005 saw an increase of 13.1% in closed sales over 2004, with record volume of $10.6 billion, compared to 2004’s $8.1 billion – a 30.9% increase. The average and median sale price of homes increased 15% over the prior year: $282,900 (2005 average) compared to $246,000 (2004 average) and $237,500 (2005 median) compared to $204,500 (2004 median). The average price of condominiums in 2005 ($233,800) increased 27.2% over the prior year - and 2004 had already increased by 16% over 2003.

Like Mark Twain’s death, reports of the bursting real estate bubble have been greatly exaggerated. Although there are certain areas of the country, especially California, where some of the appreciation may have been artificial, that is not the case in the Portland Metropolitan area. Prices are still appreciating and inventory is still low (2.1 months for December 2005). In December 2005, days on the market was slightly over 40, compared to the same month in 2004 when it was shy of 60. With inventory low and prices stablizing, the worst that can be said is that the marketplace is regaining some sanity – which is not all bad. With the frenzy of last year, seller’s were changing their minds, buyer’s were suing sellers, and Realtors® were trying to learn how juggle multiple offers.

The Take Away – As long as interest rates remain relatively stable – and they are – real estate will remain attractive for homeowners and investors. Although the stock market has improved somewhat, real estate is still an attractive form of investment diversification. To Californians, many looking to place 1031 money in other real estate, Portland prices are extremely attractive. With low interest rates permitting more first time buyers to purchase homes, more out-of-state investors looking for deals, and more boomers buying second or retirement homes, there is every reason to believe that we will have another very good year. ~ Q

TRENDS FOR 2006 AND BEYOND

The Disappearance of Traditional Business Models

Whether we know it or not, there will soon be no such thing as a “traditional” real estate brokerage company. Over the past few years, the Internet has introduced a variety of new ways for entrepreneurs to do business. The result has been new ideas, new models, and new challenges. For those Realtors® interested in long-term survival, adaptation is essential. Adaptation in today’s marketplace means keeping an open mind about what works, experimenting, and discarding old methods that are no longer effective. As a result, we are seeing a blending of old and new. Some companies formerly regarded as being “traditional” models now prefer the term “progressive.” And the companies that once were exclusively “bricks and mortar” are developing a major Internet presence.

In the early days of the Internet, the new buzz word was “disintermediation,” which meant the process of doing away with the middle-man. A classic example of disintermediation was what the Internet did to the travel industry. When was the last time you used a travel agent? Now, there are two new business models, (1) the supplier, such as the airlines itself (directly or through Orbitz), providing service over the Internet directly to the consumer, and (2) the Internet intermediary, such as Travelocity and Expedia.

For several years, companies experimented with using the Internet to do away with the middle-man in a variety of industries. Some models worked, such as insurance and mortgage loans, and some didn’t, such as groceries. People predicted the disintermediation of the real estate agent. Some still think it will happen. However, those who believe that one can sell and buy homes with nothing more than a good search engine are deceiving themselves. With increasing regulation and litigation comes the need for a safe harbor where there is reliable information and professional guidance. This is the value a good Realtor® brings to the transaction. What is more likely to happen in 2006 and beyond is that the real estate industry will adapt, change, and survive. More about this later.

The Take Away - Companies, large and small, are seeing and feeling the impact of the new innovators, who are younger, hungrier, more tech savvy, and less risk-averse. The larger companies have seen this first, since their success depends upon their brand, size and market share. They are being challenged to adapt and change. In most cases this means using the Internet in new and innovative ways. This is why the dominant players are now developing in-house lead generation programs, experimenting with ala carte services, and entering into cooperative advertising arrangements with large information portals such as Yahoo! If necessity is the mother of invention, what is happening in the real estate industry to the traditional brokerage model will be a sea change for 2006 and beyond. However, there is a danger ahead, as discussed below. ~ Q

The Internet – Online Advertising and Search Engines

The Internet is at the center of everything. It is where most consumers go as their primary source of information and it is where the ad dollars are going as well. Online advertising is taking market share from the traditional sources, i.e. newspapers, home magazines, and direct mail. According to Borrell Associates, Inc., 2005 ad revenue was 15.7% of all ad dollars. They expect that by 2009, the online media share will exceed that of newspapers. 2005 saw a decline in circulation by many of the nation’s leading newspapers. The San Francisco Chronicle tumbled 16.4%. Classified Ventures must see the handwriting on the wall; the large newspaper conglomerate consisting of Knight Ridder, Gannett, Washington Post, etc., bought Homegain, the online lead generation company, in 2005.

Search engines such as Yahoo! and Google are now partnering with brokerage companies and lead aggregators to drive traffic to their sites on a pay-per-click basis. Borrell estimates that real estate advertisers will spend more than $500 million on paid searches. This form of advertising was unheard of a few years ago.

The Take Away – The successful real estate companies will be those that recognize and exploit the value of the Internet as an advertising tool. No specific model has succeeded over others. It will take time and innovation to win over the consumer. Some Internet business models will fail if they do not succeed in capturing market share. ~ Q

The Stealth Company - Zillow

Rumors swirl around what this super-secret Internet start-up has planned for the real estate marketplace. Two former Expedia executives have been quietly developing an on-line business that many suspect will include some form of on-line search capabilities. It is believed to be consumer-focused and advertiser-driven. If true – and we’ll have to wait until Summer 2006 to find out – one must wonder whether it will rival MLSs in being the initial point of contact for home buyers and sellers.

The Take Away – Whatever its ultimate format, Zillow will be rich in content. Being well capitalized and with innovative leadership, this new start-up will likely be based on the principle that the best way to keep and retain consumers is by making information readily accessible to them. Exactly how Zillow intends to do this will be their “secret sauce.” ~ Q

Can the MLS Survive in Today’s Marketplace?

The MLS concept is based upon the counter-intuitive idea that competitors will cooperate. For all its faults, the system has worked well for many years – until the advent of the Internet. Now, the MLS model faces several challenges, some external and some internal. Though not a problem in the Portland Metro area, where we have a large and cooperative regional MLS, in some highly populated area of the country there are many competing MLSs, all with different rules for the consumer and Realtor® alike. (The greater Chicago area currently has ten.) As a result, brokerages have to belong to several services to gain the broadest coverage for their sellers. Consolidation is necessary for the process to be seamless and avoid redundancies. This recently occurred in Northern California where a group of six MLSs are consolidating to form one of the largest such services in the country.

While most observers do not predict the demise of the MLS, there are external forces which could seriously impact the success of this model for connecting sellers, buyers and brokers.

First, the U.S. Department of Justice has to decide whether it – or market forces – will eventually determine the shape of real estate industry in the future. While most knowledgeable people would say that the industry has plenty of competition, there are those who are trying to open up the MLS to everyone with a real estate license, under the guise of free competition. The result could be a cannibalization of the system, where certain business models would take leads not for the purpose of servicing them, but to sell them to others. The obvious effect of such activity is to drive net commissions down.

Secondly, the large national franchisees have to decide how much they can or will assist in helping the MLS system survive. On the one hand, some were instrumental in creating NAR’s VOW policy that resulted in the DOJ lawsuit, because they argued that NAR should have the absolute right to control its own data. Now they are partnering with online search engines and portals to attract consumers to their own branded sites and aggregate leads for their own agents – which is a good thing. But how well these two business models can co-exist remains to be seen.

Third, MLSs must protect their information. The law protects “content” not raw “data.” Today’s test for MLSs is to be able to protect their stock-in-trade, their listing information. Unless NAR is able to push through the necessary legislative solution, the battleground will be in the courts.

Fourth, there is talk of a national MLS, doing away with the mandatory Realtor® membership structure. However, such an undertaking would be monumental, financially and organizationally. Realtor.com dominates the marketplace.

The Take Away – The MLS is here to stay, although many such smaller companies may disappear through consolidation. But for this structure to maintain relevancy in the Internet marketplace, it cannot rest on its laurels. NAR must successfully settle the DOJ lawsuit, so that it has bragging rights and retains market dominance. ~ Q

The Realtor® as Gatekeeper

Realtors® have always been in a unique position, since they are generally the first point of contact in the home buying and selling process. Additionally, a trusted Realtor® has the ability to control the referral of business to other settlement providers such as title companies, lenders, inspectors, contractors, and other vendors whose services are important to consumers in the transactional process. Others have recognized this, and they know that the Internet is the ideal place to procure and aggregate information about consumer needs – which they hope to then sell to Realtors® and others. We are seeing a fight to get to the front of the line in the home selling and purchasing process. While there is money in the brokerage business, there is a gold mine in the collection of data about consumers. The data has become a commodity in itself. If the Realtor® industry loses its position of prominence at the front of the line, it is at risk of becoming marginalized and “disintermediated.”

The Take Away –Residential real estate transactions are intensely personal. Most consumers rely upon their Realtors® as not only a transactional broker, connecting sellers with buyers, but also a knowledge broker. The success of the industry depends upon the ability of the Realtor® to be perceived as being the one person that can get the job done from start to finish. While consumers can get information from the Internet, actual Knowledge will come from their agent. The task facing the industry is to educate the consumer about what Realtors® do and why they are important to the success of the entire residential transaction. ~ Q

Bundling of Services and One-Stop Shopping

The Internet holds huge opportunity for the consolidation of all aspects of the real estate transaction. But it will not happen overnight. The move toward consolidation has been in the making for several years, and it will take several more before we will know if it can actually succeed.

Today there are several companies that are developing “transactional platforms” designed to assemble, consolidate, and make available to the consumer, many of the settlement services that are separately provided today. The companies that do this successfully will become the dominant gatekeeper. It remains to be seen whether the consolidators intend to do so with or without the use of Realtors®.

The idea of simplifying the transactional process seems intuitively attractive. Consumers can obtain all of their essential services under one roof. But there are at least two major impediments to the success of one-stop-shopping – besides money. First, the regulatory process will have to change to make the process user-friendly. RESPA will have to be reformed to make the Good Faith Estimate more transparent so that consumers will truly understand what they are getting, and the anti-kickback provisions of that law will have to become sufficiently serious that the current abuses disappear. Secondly, the process will have to retain enough of a personal touch as to make the consumer feel they are dining in a fine restaurant rather than a cafeteria.

The Take Away – A lumber company can’t build your house – it can only provide the raw materials. Realtors® will retain their primacy in the home buying and selling process to the extent that they can remain at the center of the transaction. This is the job of the national, state and local Realtor® organizations and the individual agent. And if the large national brokerage companies want to increase – rather than decrease – their agent retention, they too will have to keep the individual agent at the center of the transaction. 2006 will bring an interesting interplay between agent branding and company branding. ~ Q

Polishing Your Business Plan

There is a difference between Knowledge and Information. Information is the raw material of knowledge. MLS data means nothing without the skill to interpret it and apply it to the real world. Today’s Realtor® must make a market in knowledge, which is the true “value” they bring to the transaction.

The process of buying or selling a home is infinitely more complex than it was just 10 years ago. Moreover, it is infinitely more personal than buying auto insurance or getting a loan. The Internet may “disintermediate” certain business models, but not Realtors®.

The Take Away - Here are some questions Realtors® should ask themselves as they develop their business plans for the future:

• Where does my business come from and how can I best mine that source?
• What kind of business do I actually want?
• If I’m not getting what I want, how can I change it?
• Commission rates are self-selecting - Is refusing business really the only answer?
• How do I deal with minimum service companies and other business models?
• How can I distinguish myself from the rank and file?
• How can I let my clients know that Knowledge is the real commodity I sell? ~ Q

FOOTNOTES

1 All opinions expressed in this handout are mine alone. They do not necessarily represent the views of the Realtor® industry, it’s associations, or members.

2 Source: LCDC http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/measure37.shtml#Status_of_Measure_37_Claims

3 Oregon Real Estate and Land Use Digest, Vol. 27, No. 6, November 5, 2005, MarionCounty Circuit Court Invalidates Measure 37, by Edward J. Sullivan.

4 A week after the Kelo decision, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a resolution by a vote of 365 to 33, expressing disagreement with the majority’s ruling.

© Copyright 2006. Phillip C. Querin, Davis Wright Tremaine. No part may be reproduced without the author’s express written consent.