http://www.zoomerang.com/Survey/WEB22E47V5J5E6″

Here’s the final question. I’d be interested to hear what you all think about this. It goes back to the root issue we all face that is the stumbling block for many of our legislators – how do you feel about putting your own issues on the table? We’re quick to encourage cuts to other areas of ‘obvious waste’ – but what about those issues that are near and dear to us?

Which of these statements most closely reflects your opinion on NAR response?

* When it comes to changes in tax deductions, real estate tax preferences and federal spending, we must all share in the sacrifice to reduce our national debt (including reducing or eliminating some real estate related deductions) to assure the future health of our nation.

OR…

* Existing real estate related federal tax deductions and preferences, including mortgage interest deduction and the $250,000/$500,000 capital gains exclusion, should be preserved in their current form despite concerns about federal deficits and national debt.

We’re having some fun now, eh?

Until now.

The past couple days I’ve had calls from several friends asking if this is a scam – and friends, I hate to say it but IT IS!

If you get something in your email that looks like this…

nacha

or this…

ach

Don’t click on anything but your delete button – otherwise you could end up with some seriously nasty times for you and your computer. Don’t take my word for it – you can check the NACHA website yourself – their front page carries a caution about the fraudulent emails along with a website to send a copy if you got one. That’s abuse@nacha.org. Or you can check Snopes for more info at: http://www.snopes.com/fraud/phishing/nacha.asp. NACHA, the electronic Payments Association, does not process nor communicate directly with persons or organizations about individual ACH transactions.

According to FBI stats, violent crime, including murder, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault, is down across the country by 5.5%. That’s pretty good considering the economic situation. You might imagine just the opposite would be happening but so far so good.

For at least the 2nd year in a row Irvine California ranks #1 in safety with almost 10 times less than the national average crime rate – just 55 crimes per 100,000 people with Zero murders and 30 robberies. Contrast this with the most dangerous city in the country, Flint MI, with 2,208 violent crimes per 100,000 including 49 murders and 84 forcible rapes.

Southwest County again scored well. For the past couple years Murrieta has ranked #2 behind Irvine, with Temecula coming in at 4 or 5. This year Temecula leapfrogged to #2 and Murrieta came in 4th. Temecula had just 72 violent crimes per 100,000 with 3 rapes while Murrieta had 95 violent crimes and 1 murder. Considering that each city has just over 100,000 population, that means there really were only 72 violent crimes in Temecula last year. Applying the same count for #2 Detroit with 1,887 violent crimes per 100,000 and a population of 800,000 gives you a crime spree of nearly 19,000 violent crimes and 340 murders last year. Yowza!

The 13 safest:
Irvine CA
Temecula CA
Cary NC
Murrieta CA
Gilbert AZ
Red Rock TX
Frisco TX
Simi Valley CA
Bellevue WA
Orange CA
Amherst Town NY
Thousand Oaks CA
Surprise AZ

The 25 most dangerous:

Flint MI
Detroit MI
St. Louis MO
New Haven CT
Memphis TN
Oakland CA
Little Rock AK
Baltimore MD
Rockfort IL
Stockton CA
Buffalo NY
Springfield MA
Cleveland OH
Hartford CN
Washington DC
Springfield IL
Philadelphia PA
Lowell MA
Richmond CA
Saint Petersburg FL
Nashville TN
Kansas City MO
Miami FL
Lansing MI
Elizabeth NJ

Norris has over 30 years of real estate experience and more than 2,000 real estate transactions as a buyer, seller, builder and capitol partner. He is an award winning author, hosts a weekly radio program, is a frequent speaker throughout the state and is the founder of The Norris Group, one of the premier real estate investment resources in California. The ‘I Survived Real Estate’ event brings together a number of industry leaders to discuss their often disparate views of the housing industry and answer questions posed by Norris.

This year’s panel included Fannie Mae Chief Economist Doug Duncan, Foreclosure Radar President Sean O’Toole, National Association of Realtors First Vice President Gary Thomas, Chair-elect of the Mortgage Bankers Association Debra Still, President-elect of the Appraisal Institute Sara Stephens and iTulip Founder Eric Janszen.

Duncan, recently named one of the nation’s top four most accurate economists by the Wall Street Journal, discussed the future of his organization in light of President Obama’s call to eliminate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac within the decade. Duncan believes this will be a positive step forward as a way to minimize the government’s role in the housing industry and promote private industry’s participation in the market.

This has been a very controversial position as Fannie, Freddie and the FHA, currently underwrite more than 90% of mortgage loans on the market today. Many would argue that there would not be a mortgage market without them. Duncan acknowledged the validity of this claim but offered that the gradual phase-out as called for by the administration will allow alternative financing methods to be developed and that negative impact to the market would be minimal.

Thomas, in line to be the President of the National Association of Realtors in 2013 indicated the industry is very concerned with the plan, or lack there-of. “Without Fannie & Freddie in place there would not have been a mortgage written since 2007,” according to Thomas. “Private lenders are risk averse right now as a result of getting burned by their own exotic inventions during the early part of the decade and stepped away from the market at a time we needed them most. NAR will work very aggressively to make sure whatever programs remain in place are in the best interest of the American consumer.”

The panel also addressed concerns over the massive bail-outs orchestrated by the federal government and their impact on the economy. Janszen, a long-time financial and economic market analyst, added ‘there is really no consensus on the efficacy of the programs’, noting that many believed the programs were little more than ‘print and pray’ exercises with our money. Duncan and Still took some exception to that characterization pointing out that at the very least the programs helped stabilize a rapidly declining market and that much of what was loaned to banks as ‘bail-out’ has been repaid with interest.

Legislation and the global economy figured prominently in the evening’s discussion with Duncan concluding that ‘the likelihood of Greece defaulting on its obligations today is 100%.’ “It’s not a matter of ‘if’ they will default, it’s simply a matter of ‘when’. The only questions is will it be done in an orderly manner which will allow the European economy to hit the bump and continue on, or if it’s done chaotically which will likely result in another worldwide recession.”

O’Toole, whose Foreclosure Radar website is considered to be the pinnacle of information on future trends in the distressed property market, drew some of the evening’s loudest applause when he called on banks to step up their efforts to take back properties and clear out the backlog. “Is it fair for you and I to keep making payments on our home, whether underwater or not, when the family next door can live there without making a payment for a year or two or three? And, face it, many of them just made bad decisions and should not have been in those homes to begin with. They knew it, their lenders knew it and now we all know it but the problem keeps dragging on. Until that backlog of non-performing loans is cleared off the books, banks can’t move forward. And until we get all these homes back into the hands of real home-owners or investors and renters, the market cannot stabilize.”

For more information on The Norris Group and to hear the more than 7 hours of interviews and commentary by this year’s panel, please visit http://www.thenorrisgroup.com/.

And one of the problems, as you’ll recall, is that some 90% of our Democratic legislators (who comprise the majority in both houses) have NEVER held an honest job. In one fashion or another they have been on the public dole their entire career, public office holder, commissioner, union organizer – some facet of public employment which has never forced them to meet a payroll, be responsive to the desires of customers, never required that they produce a product or a profit. Honest!

So it was no wonder during a recent discussion of the far-reaching costs of our landmark AB32 Greenhouse Emissions bill, that Democratic legislators referred to one of the by-products of the bill as ‘leakage’. Know what leakage was a euphemism for? JOBS! Yeah. Our state, with consistent unemployment of 12+% and these a-holes are referring to further job loss as ‘leakage’.

They were voting on some final rules to this horrendous piece-of-crap bill that will drive more businesses out of state and put even more people out of work but to them it’s simply leakage. Implementing this bill has already cost long-haul truckers and construction crews their jobs and resulted in increased costs for consumer goods from food to gas in the state. The last phase, slated for implementation in 2013 and 2014 sets in place the cap-and-trade emissions system whereby companies will either cut their emissions levels back to what they were in 1990, OR pay for emission credits from companies that emit below their cap OR pay substantial fines.

So the exodus of jobs from California will not only continue but probably expand. We already have more than 5 times as many companies leaving the state, reducing their footprint in the state or just going out of business as we did just 2 years ago. Aww, it’s just leakage says the California Air Resources Board. Oh, and the manufacturing and other jobs that are being over-regulated and over-taxed out of state – they’re going to Mexico or China or other states that have more realistic goals for emissions. So not only is California losing jobs but by our intransigence we are also INCREASING the amount of pollutants in the air.

So to get this straight, our never-held-a-job legislators passed an overarching landmark bill designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the state. Notice I didn’t say pollutants – that’s not covered specifically – just greenhouse gasses which they claim will reduce manmade global warming – if you still believe in that. And the appointed-not-elected wing-nuts on the California Air Resources Board have taken on the challenge of putting teeth into all these rules. And they admit that at times they have relied on specious science to formulate their rules. In fact they admit that AB32 will not reduce global warming even if they shut down every business in the state. But according to their logic – it is a beacon that was passed to encourage other states and countries to follow California’s lead.

Oh Puh-leeze.

What my Momma used to say – ‘just cause that other knott head jumps off a cliff, you gotta go do the same thing?’ Not me. And especially when I can just as easily follow the out-migration of businesses and jobs and people to places where the politicians s still have a brain cell or two, where my congressman might actually have held a job in the not-too-distant past and where the human tragedy of job loss is not simply dismissed as ‘leakage’.

Of course that’s just my opinion – I could be wrong.

Another cluster **** from a government reeling from one uninformed decision to the next. It seems every time you turn around someone from the administration is bemoaning the state of housing in the country today. Housing has pulled us out of 6 of the last 8 recessions – why not this one?

Why? Because Washington says one thing and does the complete opposite. Or one branch does one thing while another branch acts to negate the first (see: PACE Program). Is it any wonder confidence is at record lows? If you people are going to screw up, at least do it consistently so we can move forward with confidence that you’ll continue to screw up the same way – we can deal with that. It’s the multiple levels of screw-ups and misdirection that has us lost.

For those of you that live in the middle of the country, I know it makes no difference. It’s not your fight. But at least get out of the way for those of us that do have a dog in the fight, OK?

Here’s a primer – prior to 2007 GSE loan limits were low. Even though we were in higher cost California, for our county it was about $355,000. Some very high cost areas got 115% of the median price of the market up to $417,000 and some areas as high as $525,000. Problem was, in 2005 – 2007 the median price for a home in our state was approaching $600,000. In our little backwater, medians were in the low $500,000′s for 2 years. That meant that anybody coming to our area COULD NOT GET a conforming loan for even a median price home. They were increasingly pushed into the jumbo market with higher fees, tighter qualifying and higher interest rates. Use of FHA and GSE backed mortgages plummeted from as high as 55% to around 7% by mid-2007.

But where there’s a problem, there’s also an opportunity so lenders came up with ways to address people’s inability to get conforming loans by inventing a whole new category of loans – the exotics. And it worked so well, they kept inventing new features. Can’t qualify for an Alt A or subprime, how about if we ask for ’0′ down? No? How about interest only for 3 years? Still don’t qualify? How about if we just tell you how much you need to make in order to qualify and then you tell us you make that much? Better?

And the GSE’s saw their market share falling even more and the geniuses on Capitol Hill saw that that was bad so just as things started to implode they made a corrective move to increase conforming loan limits. Had they done that 3 or 4 years earlier while maintaining the relative quality of the loan qualification process, we would not be in the trouble we are today.

Now many of the same geniuses who got us into the problem are charged with getting us back out. And they look at the higher loan limits and see that very few people are using that higher limit today. Duh. So their conclusion is not that they tanked the market, but that the higher limits must no longer be needed. And many Republicans are against the higher loan limits because they see this as a way to ‘reduce governments stake in housing’. Great time to be worried about this, ya schmendrakes. Why not just drive that stake right into the heart of the market while you’re fiddly-farting around trying to make us believe you actually have principles.

YOU DULLARDS! First of all, you are absolutely killing any nascent move-up market that may be starting to percolate. In my area we’re down from $500,000 to $355,000 as a conforming cap and sales of $400,000 – $600,000 homes, which were damnably slow to begin with have dried up completely.

It is true that it has not impacted the broader base of our business because our median price has fallen from the mid-$500′s to the high $200′s or low $300′s. But what about when the market snaps back? And it will. It always does. Even Obama can’t kill the innate drive for the American Dream of Homeownership. So what happens in my little market, or the broader California market, or the other 593 higher cost counties in 42 states when the median price again creeps over that cap?

Well, lenders are working on a solution to that even as we speak. The only question is – what are they going to call sub-prime next time? That name’s probably played out.

Of course that’s just my opinion. I could be wrong.

This morning I joined the Mayor of Murrieta, Randon Lane, Wildomar Mayor Pro-Tem Ben Benoit, Menifee City Council member Darcy Kuenzi, Lake Elsinore Finance Director Allan Baldwin and League of Cities rep Dave Willmon in providing our statements to the assembled press. Here is my statement:

Good morning. My name is Gene Wunderlich and I’m Chair of the Southwest California Legislative Council, a coalition of businesses and Chambers representing more than 3,000 small, medium and large businesses in Southwest Riverside County.

Communities throughout our state are facing crisis. In Riverside County our unemployment rate is 14.7%, statewide it is 12.1%, and that’s only the people they count. Like many other cities and counties across California, we each face problems that are similar in nature, yet unique to each locality. We must be able to make decisions that are best for our communities, our families and our friends.

Our elected leaders in Sacramento don’t seem to know what’s going on in Temecula, or Wildomar, or Menifee or communities across Southwest Riverside County. SB469 is a perfect example of that with its bureaucratic roadblocks and overreaching state authority. It’s a one=size-fits-all bill and it will not help us create jobs in our community – although it may well keep several attorneys busy for years.

This bill takes away the power of a community to build and define itself and gives that power to the state, having local land use issues defined in Sacramento. The state SHOULD NOT be imposing more regulations on local governments right now. The state SHOULD NOT be telling us what kinds of businesses we can and cannot approve and the state SHOULD NOT be interfering in our ability to help reduce the high unemployment rate in our own community.

We are asking Governor Brown to help Southwest Riverside County and cities and counties across the state. Join us in helping create new jobs, not destroy more jobs.

VETO SB469.

This bill is also opposed by the California Association of Realtors® and dozens of other pro-jobs, pro-business & pro-local rights groups throughout the state.

The scheme claimed that courts have found that most mortgage lenders engaged in predatory lending practices or approved inappropriate loans (well, that part is certainly true), and that the homeowners bank was one of the guilty. As alleged in the lawsuit, defendants preyed on desperate homeowners facing foreclosure by selling them participation as plaintiffs in mass joinder lawsuits against mortgage lenders. Defendants deceptively led homeowners to believe that by joining these lawsuits, they would stop pending foreclosures, reduce their loan balances or interest rates, obtain money damages, and even receive title to their homes free and clear of their existing mortgage. Defendants charged homeowners retainer fees of up to $10,000 to join as plaintiffs to a mass joinder lawsuit against their lender or loan servicer.

It probably comes as no surprise that theses same ‘prominent foreclosure attorneys’ had previously been ‘prominent loan modification specialists’ but it is alleged that Kramer sent an email to another fellow defendant last year stating “Only morons would prefer to ‘sell’ mods from this day forward”.
Homeowners who have paid to be added to one of the lawsuits should contact the State Bar if they feel they may be victims of this scam. They can also contact a HUD-certified housing counselor for general mortgage related assistance. If you have sent money to any of the following seized entities, you should contact the CA Attorney Generals Office at http://oag.ca.gov/.

The Department of Justice has seized the practices of the following non-attorney defendants: Attorneys Processing Center, LLC; Data Management, LLC; Gary DiGirolamo; Bill Stephenson; Mitigation Professionals, LLC; Glen Reneau; Pate Marier & Associates, Inc.; James Pate; Ryan Marier; Home Retention Division; Michael Tapia; Lewis Marketing Corp.; Clarence Butt; and Thomas Phanco as well as seizing the practices and accounts of attorney defendants:The Law Offices of Kramer & Kaslow; Philip Kramer, Esq; Mitchell J. Stein & Associates; Mitchell Stein, Esq.; Christopher Van Son, Esq.; Mesa Law Group Corp.; and Paul Petersen, Esq.

Attorney General Harris is challenging the defendants’ alleged misconduct in marketing their mass joinder lawsuits; her office takes no position as to the legal merits of any claims asserted in the mass joinder lawsuits filed by defendants.

Victims in the following states are known to have received these mailers, or signed on to join the case. This is a preliminary list that may be updated:

Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Texas, Washington.

For more information please go to: http://oag.ca.gov/news/press_release?id=2552

The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) has recently issued its Mortgage Acts and Practices – Advertising, or “MAP”, rule (“Rule”). The Rule imposes requirements on those that provide information about mortgage credit products to consumers by prohibiting misrepresentations during these communications and also imposing recordkeeping requirements. The Rule will impact real estate professionals that provide this information to consumers, such as giving a consumer a lender’s rate sheet. The Rule takes effect on August 19, 2011.

Click here to read the Rule’s text and accompanying commentary.

Background

The FTC published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in 2009, and issued a proposed rule relating to unfair or deceptive acts and practices that may occur with regard to mortgage advertising in September 2010. NAR filed a comment letter seeking an exemption for real estate professionals from the Rule- click here to read NAR’s comment letter.

The Rule is intended to regulate unfair or deceptive practices in the advertising of mortgage products, and covers all entities involved in the process such as mortgage brokers, lenders, and home builders. The Rule will also cover real estate professionals when they are providing information about a mortgage credit product to a consumer, as outlined in this article.

Rulemaking authority for the Rule has now transferred to the Consumer Financial Protect Bureau (“CFPB”). Enforcement authority for the Rule rests with the CFPB, FTC, and state attorneys general.

Rule’s Requirements

The Rule prohibits misrepresentations in a commercial communication about any term of a mortgage credit product. A “commercial communication” is broadly defined within the Rule, covering both oral and written statements designed to “create an interest in purchasing goods or services”, which in this case would be a mortgage credit product. A “mortgage credit product” is “any form of credit” that is offered to a consumer and secured by the consumer’s dwelling. The Rule’s coverage will include information about all mortgage terms and the Rule contains an extensive list of possible mortgage terms, including interest rates, products sold in conjunction with a mortgage such as credit insurance, amount of taxes, variability of interest rates, and prepayment penalties.

Application of Rule to Real Estate Professionals

The Rule will apply when a real estate professional provides information about a specific mortgage product to a consumer. An example would be providing a consumer with rate sheets containing the current interest rate from a lender or providing a consumer with applications or other information for a specific mortgage product. All statements about the terms of a mortgage will be covered by the Rule, and will need to be retained for two years. In addition, the statements should have the disclaimer language discussed in this article in order to protect against later misrepresentation claims.

The FTC has stated in its comments that the Rule does not apply to purely informational communications not designed to cause the purchase of a good or service because these are not commercial communications. So, providing a consumer general information about market rates for different types of mortgages products will likely not be subject to the Rule because these are not related to a specific mortgage product. However, providing a consumer with the daily rates from a specific lender would trigger compliance with the rule. Similarly, going through the prequalification process with a consumer in order to determine the range of properties that a consumer may be eligible to purchase won’t require compliance with the Rule; however, providing a consumer with the documentation needed to apply for a preapproval from a lender for a mortgage loan will be covered by the Rule.

Disclaimer or Qualifying Statement

In the preamble to the final Rule, the FTC notes that a disclaimer provided with a covered statement “may correct a misleading impression, but only if it is sufficiently clear and prominent to convey the qualifying information effectively”. Therefore, real estate professionals should always include a disclaimer when providing information to consumers about the terms of a mortgage credit product, as a properly crafted disclaimer can protect against later misrepresentation claims.

The disclaimer will need to be prominent, as the FTC notes in its comments that disclaimers in small type placed at the bottom of a document will not protect against misrepresentation claims. The disclaimer text should be separated from the other text in the covered statement, as language buried within the text may not be effective to protect against misrepresentation claims. Click here for a model disclaimer.

Note that the disclaimer should be tailored to the type of information that you are providing to a client. If you are providing other services beyond transmitting basic mortgage information, you will need to tailor your disclaimer to cover those services.

Recordkeeping Requirements

If a real estate professional is subject to the Rule, the real estate professional is required to keep all covered commercial communications for 2 years from the date that the communication was made to the consumer. In order to comply with this section, the real estate professional should put all covered statements into writing and include the statements in each consumer’s file (paper or electronic) with the brokerage. This record retention system should become part of the brokerage’s overall record retention program.

Dan Walters, Political Columnists for the Sacramento Bee, recently wrote about the slew of Democratic legislation aimed at eviscerating the initiative process in our state. You know, the initiative process – whereby ordinary citizens have the opportunity to get measures on the ballot that legislators don’t like? Yeah, that process. Democrats complain that ‘the initiative process is being abused’ and they want to protect us from ourselves.

Now granted there are too many initiatives on our ballot sometimes – there were 10 on last Novembers ballot alone, But in its 100 year history, the initiative, referendum and recall petition has produced many beneficial results in addition to a few clinkers. Prop. 13 comes to mind, and last years successful Prop 20, which removed the redistricting process from the hands of our legislators, and failed Props 19, to legalize marijuana and  23, which would have overthrown the onerous AB 32.

But the Democrats don’t like us to have that much say in our government – because they know what’s best for us and how best to spend our money without any pesky input from us. Heck, they already control our legislature, our governor, and every major elected office in the state – they just don’t want to contend with the actual voice of the people.  They’re also afraid of public backlash against their incompetence and malfeasance in office which is threatening to put bills on upcoming ballots mandating pension reform, restrictions on political fundraising by unions, education entitlement and reform and a host of other issues that citizens are pissed off about but that the legislature refuses to act on.

Now in an act of craven insincerity, they are backing radio ads aimed at inducing fear of signing initiative petitions. You may have heard them – a sweet female voice just signed a petition outside the local grocery store while the wise male voice tells her she probably just gave her signature to an identity thief, all her pertinent information will be shared on the global network of signature gatherers/identity thieves, and she should never do that again. Listen closely at the end, after the terrified woman promises never to do such a stupid thing again – listen to who is paying for the ad. It’s a  group called - Californians Against Identity Theft,  ALONG WITH backing by unidentified labor groups. The origins of the group are murky but the goal is not.  Identity theft is a major issue and cause for concern for everybody, I’ve written about it numerous times over the years, But the SOLE FOCUS of CAIT appears top be  signature gatherers and the initiative process. Sound like a well rounded group focused on the real issue – or some special interest? Yeah, that’s what I thought.

Maybe I’m just cynical but could the liberal labor movement and their Democratic lackeys in the legislature be in cahoots on this? Could they actually be waging a concerted campaign both in the legislature and on the airwaves to further their agenda of coercion and control? Naw, I’m probably just being paranoid. Of course just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they really aren’t  out to get you.

How much do like being manipulated? You must – you keep voting for these people.

Read more: http://www.fresnobee.com/2011/08/03/2487995/calif-democrats-attack-initiative.html#ixzz1UqBID2Lb

The opinions expressed in this blog are solely the purview of the author and in no way represent the views or policies of SRCAR, or any other reputable organization or asylum I am associated with.

Well, good riddance to bad company, right? You’re paying more but at least you’ve got quality service and no more problems right?  

Not in California. When our esteemed legislators reconvene mid-August after their mid-autumn respite from profligately squandering our money, one of the bills they will consider is AB350 (Solorio). The bill is called the ‘Displaced Property Service Employees Opportunity Act’ and here’s what it does. Whenever an owner of a building awards a contract to provide services for their building to a new contractor, the new contractor MUST HIRE the previous contractors employees to do the work. And you’d have to keep them in place for at least 90 days. 

The predecessor bill – the Janitor Opportunity Act signed into law in 2001, only applied to janitorial staff. The new and improved version would grant the rights/protections to janitors, window washers, landscape workers, security, cafeteria and dietary services as well. You as the building’s owner, the person who hires the service personnel to support your investment, have NO VOICE whatsoever in the process. You can hire a new company but still get the same lackluster service you tried to replace – at least for 90 days. 

Because the bill creates no new jobs and only applies an additional layer of regulation to an already overburdened jobs market in the state, the Southwest California Legislative Council signaled our opposition to the measure in April. This bill should have died in committee, or at the very least should never have passed the Assembly and should not be passed by the Senate. Unfortunately our Democratic majority Assembly passed the bill and the Senate will take the matter up in a couple weeks, with probably the same result. Jerry Brown should veto the bill but again…

Oh well, that’s what happens when you have a majority of our legislature who has never held an honest job. Their ranks are bloated with lifetime ‘public servants’ and sycophants who have always fed at the public trough, never met a payroll, never had to hire or fire employees, never tasted the glory of entrepreneurship nor dealt with it’s dark side. 

Keep it up, folks. The next regulation you pass should be one making it illegal for California companies to move out of state. With all the other crap you are heaping on them, that’s the only way you’ll prevent the dozens who are departing every week from heading to Texas or South Carolina or Nevada or anyplace but California.  

Making sense of the story

*     A short sale – a transaction in which the homeowner sells the property for less than is owed on the mortgage – must be approved by the lien holder or lien holders, if there is more than one.

*     Under previous law (SB 931 of 2010), a first mortgage holder could accept an agreed-upon short-sale payment as full payment for the outstanding balance of the loan, but the rule did not apply to junior lien holders. SB 458 extends the protections of SB 931 to junior liens.

*     The CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS® (C.A.R.) sponsored the bill and urged lawmakers to pass this much-needed legislation.

*     “The signing of this bill is a victory for California homeowners who have been forced to short sell their home, only to find that the lender will pursue them after the short sale closes and demand an additional payment to subsidize the difference,” said C.A.R. President Beth L. Peerce.  “SB 458 brings closure and certainty to the short-sale process and ensures that once a lender has agreed to accept a short-sale payment on a property, all lienholders – those in first position and in junior positions – will consider the outstanding balance as paid in full, and the homeowner will not be held responsible for any additional payments on the property.”

Read the full story <http://www2.realtoractioncenter.com/site/R?i=Y7pJy-rwyTJMoTmgvOXhDA..>

Viola – sub-prime, Alt-A, exotics. 

You’ve probably already heard that B of A is already operating under the new/old loan limits assuming that Congress will let them expire. This means larger, more costly jumbos are back in place for many buyers. You think our move-up and upper end market is dead now? Just wait. 

So please take a moment to respond to this Call to Action. This week the Senate will be considering an amendment to the Military Construction Appropriations Bill (don’t ask), to maintain the current loan limits for another year. Both CAR and NAR support this effort. This Call to Action urges our Senators to work to maintain the current loan limits to help fan the flames of the recovery they so desperately need. 

Please help us ensure that your clients have access to affordable mortgages. 

Posted: 14 Jul 2011 06:45 AM PDT

I hope that you’ve all taken a minute to respond to the latest call-for-action from NAR. (That goes double for those who are always complaining that NAR doesn’t do anything for you.)

A bill, H.R. 1309, is being debated in Congress right now that would re-authorize, reform, and extend the National Flood Insurance Program for 5 years.

The NAR Land Use Committee, has been working on getting this bill in place for years – it’s been a top priority. Finally we have a bill that will truly make a difference if passed, or the NFIP program will sunset on September 30 of this year.

If that happens, it would be catastrophic for many areas, coastal regions, mid-west areas prone to flooding, etc. This program is the ONLY SOURCE of flood damage protection for 5.6 million home and business owners today, not to mention the millions of affiliated jobs like builders, remodelers, movers, mortgage lenders, insurance agents, real estate professionals and more. In the last 3 years alone there have been 9 stopgap extensions and 5 shutdowns. Just last year a shutdown of just a few weeks resulted in more than 47,000 home sales delayed or canceled – in a market that is way down to begin with.

Do we need MORE uncertainty from our leaders on this issue? We actually have a chance to provide some long term stability to at least one segment of our market, let’s not blow it. Take a minute – click on the page below and lend your voice to the chorus.

1.1 million strong. Very little we can’t do if we put our minds and hearts to it.

Thank you.

I know it’s not you but… we have been notified by the TIGAR association in Corona that their city people are having sign ordinance problems – and it’s all the dastardly OUT OF AREA AGENTS that are gumming  up the works. So a copy of their sign ordinance is attached for your viewing pleasure.

If you list properties in Corona, or hold open houses there, you need to be aware of the rules. They’re actually not bad and have mostly to do with sign size and hours &  areas of placement. Otherwise they reserve the right to pick up your signage and, if it doesn’t stop there, they could rescind the whole ordinance and you’d get NO (0) signs.

So play along. I know, it’s not you.

Here’s the ordinance…

According to an email from Bank of America, conventional loans that exceed the permanent loan limits will now be required to use non-conforming programs.

Barring Congressional action, the maximum FHA, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac conforming loan limit will decline to $625,500 beginning Oct. 1, 2011, from the current $729,750 limit, though the majority of counties will fall far below the $625,500 maximum.  The conforming loan limit determines the maximum size of a mortgage that FHA, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) can buy or guarantee.  Non-conforming or jumbo loans typically carry a higher mortgage interest rate than a conforming loan and require a higher down payment, increasing the monthly payment and negatively impacting housing affordability for California home buyers.

Again, barring congressional action (heh), conforming loan limits in Southwest California will likely revert to about $425,000. Not that big a deal right now but in a couple years we’ll be priced out of the market again and looking for alternatives. How do you think Subprime and Alt-A loans got so popular out here? Couldn’t get a conforming loan for a median price home.

But a couple of things have changed. This year many of the dropped assessments will go to commercial properties, which are continuing to lag residential properties. When I spoke with Larry earlier this year he was hopeful there would not be a need for further reductions this year after taking property values for the county back to roughly 2002 levels last year. Indeed as we have seen from my reports, residential values have remained virtually flatlined through the past 24 months after dropping over 50% in the previous 18 months. Assessed property values for the county for 2011 will be just over $200 billion, down over 16% from their peak of $243 billion in 2008.

This will be felt next year by the county as well as our cities, who are struggling to keep services afloat. Property taxes are the single largest source of operating funds for our cities and county and a substantial and real drop as we have experienced puts a real crimp in budgets, especially following the recent state decisions to further plunder city coffers of redevelopment funds, vehicle license fees and some of the basic operating funds cities have always counted on to get by. For the county it will mean a drop of nearly $5 million in property tax revenue from their earlier estimate of $266 million, a reduction of nearly 1% from their current budget of $582 million.

A second major change from Ward’s office is in the way the changes will be reported to property owners. Every year along about this time people got used to seeing a little postcard in their mailbox telling them what next years assessed value on their home would be. This year that’s not happening. In an effort to shave $200,000 from his budget, Ward will be posting the new assessments on-line on July 15. You can review your property tax assessment at www.riversideacr.com. If you don’t have internet access, well then you’re probably not reading this but in case you know somebody who may not browse, they can obtain a written assessment by calling 951-955-6200. They could also write to

Assessor, County Clerk, Recorder Larry Ward
P.O.B. 12004
Riverside CA  92502-2204

One final change tis year. If you think your assessed value should be higher or lower, it might cost you to find out. There has been debate among the County Supervisors to charge a fee to challenge your assessment. Should your challenge prevail and the property re-assessed, the fee would be refunded. But if the initial assessment stands then you will forfeit that fee. This has been proposed for two reasons – first as a cost measure to help defray some of the expense of researching individual properties after the process has already been done. Second, to minimize the rash of frivolous filings that occurs every year without foundation. Appears the only time people want their home to be worth less than it actually is is for tax purposes. And while this is understandable, your ‘gut feel’ of what your home is hopefully worth for tax purposes costs the county a lot of money to show you otherwise and that is being addressed by the new fee structure. If  you purchased your home after January 1, 1999, chances are Larry’s got you covered. He’s been one of the most aggressive and accurate Recorders in the state as far as making sure you aren’t over taxed.