Been over a month since I posted about the new RPA. There are RPA courses, lots of RPA courses and the agents are repeatedly told that without the courses they cannot possibly understand the contract. As I wrote earlier--where does that leave the Buyers and Sellers? Do they get a course? There will be a booklet produced to explain things to the principals--and conveniently available at a cost. Buyers and Sellers should ask their agent for one, unless the buyers and sellers are attorneys (maybe even then).
The money involved in the courses is pretty impressive. Costs for the 4 hour version range upwards of $50 a head. Do the math--275 agents @ $50 = $13,750. Hey, that's real money. In metro areas with bigger venues we're talking serious money. Then there's face to face webinar formats--that cost as much--and enable one "teacher" to rake in a huge amount of money from all over the state. Sounds like a clever plan. Produce a new RPA lacking clarity in content, then charge money to the people who paid the dues that supported the RPA creation process to explain the form to them so they can attempt to educate the public who really just want to buy or sell a house. At the same time all the trade organization faithful infer at every opportunity that without the course, understanding is well nigh impossible for agents or the public.
The Standard Forms Committee is made up volunteers--free labor in evaluating the suggestions and comments. Legal staff and support staff are well paid, but the amount of volunteer time contributed pushes the business model into a sector well separated from that of typical businesses. Not surprisingly there is no bona fide competition from other forms firms--paying for all the hours it takes to produce a new RPA would be prohibitively expensive for a stand alone business. SOOO--if you want a simple, easy to understand version of the RPA for a straightforward transaction--you're out of luck unless you insist that your attorney draft one. One size fits all because the trade organization says it does.
No, I did not go to an RPA course. I read through the new RPA several times in a half hour and compared it to the old version. There's no compelling reason to revise the old version based on the changes--IMHO. There are some gems of convoluted verbiage in the new one, but it says what it says. The attorneys who end up studying the new RPA in the course of disputes will be reading the words, not depending on course content. The buyers and sellers will be reading the words--if they read them at all. Going to a course to listen to legal staff explain what they really meant or learning their intent in changing previous wording is not relevant to the real world of contract creation. Woulda, shoulda, coulda doesn't count. Such commentary is interesting if you're a legal scholar curious about real estate purchase agreement evolution. I'm not. The buyers and sellers are not. The plaintiff's attorneys are not. The new RPA says what it says.
I will definitely buy booklets written for the public to give to my clients because they repesent a reasonable attempt to educate the public about the contract they are being asked to execute. I can buy several booklets for the price of one course. If I went to several versions of the RPA course, I'd still do the same thing. The booklets are usually much more clearly written that the RPA itself (I think they hire professional writers to distill the legaleese). Now if the folks who write the booklets would write the RPA we'd all be in a better situation--except for the trial attorneys and the trade organization. Wonder if there's some special significance there--LOL!
Facebook Badge
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Monday, April 5, 2010
feeling green yet?
To pick up the trail we'll consider how awareness might fold into the decision process to temper the infatuation response with recognition that beyond the subtle visual cues that might combine to create an alluring intuitive feel for a particular house (we'll focus on houses now--the relationship parallel is left up the reader and his or her therapist--LOL). The experience of living in a house is certainly influenced by the feel arising from visual cues, but there are practical matters and the tug of conscience--how much energy went into building the house and will go into sustaining it.
Humans are (often) rational beings with the potential ability to make decisions that override or at least modify initial intuitive impulses. Large decisions, like where to live, are usually made with some warning and preparation. It's true that negotiations are sometimes very time sensitive, but actually choosing a house or a neighborhood involves some time and contemplation.
The modification of intuitive feel by more practical considerations based on knowledge and experience occurs throughout the animal kingdom. Humans may do it best, but also have the ability to jump headlong into an intuitive choice.
Consideration and appreciation of multiple facets forming the expectation of experiences living in a particular house should lead to wise decisions. Those may mean that an adorable house is revered for what it is, but is nonetheless deemed not appropriate as a favored choice as a residence. To borrow a Boston song title "It's more than a feeling".
Experience plays an important role. When my sorta ex wife and I moved to Cambria in 1992, we rented a most adorable English looking cottage with panoramic ocean views and soaring Monterey Pines nearby. We first saw it on glorious sunny day and it was purely magical. As time passed we discovered the roof leaked, the walls leaked, the garage had a dirt floor that became mud when that roof leaked too, there was minimal heat and pine trees tended to blow over in the wind storms. From that time forward little adorable English cottages create a different intuitive response in me. I still think they're cute, but the experiences recalled temper any inclination I might have to live in one again, unless I thoroughly checked out the systems beyond the image.
That's the hopeful path for wider adoption of green features in housing. They aren't going to be conspicuously sexy to compete on equal terms with the visual cues that fuel the feel. Nonetheless, if Buyers are made aware that some houses have a substantially smaller carbon footprint than others and that the planet Earth needs all the help it can get to continue providing habitable environments for human existence, that awareness may shape the final decision process.
It's unrealistic to expect buyers to choose ugly houses because they're "green", but they shouldn't need to. Green houses can be just as attractive as any others. There's also the option of taking a striking older home, already in place with embodied energy bought and paid for, and making it more green through retrofits.
These nuances in decision making create an incumbent need among the real estate development and marketing industries to educate the public along new dimensions ranging far beyond the classic way points of curb appeal and floor plan. Yes, that increases the complexity of decisions and will diminish perceived value among homes lacking green features or green potential. Homes have a long lifespan and to merely look the other way in favor of short term commission flow is disingenuous, even for real estate. It's not all about commission. Everything is ultimately about the planet and Mother Earth doesn't work on commission.
Humans are (often) rational beings with the potential ability to make decisions that override or at least modify initial intuitive impulses. Large decisions, like where to live, are usually made with some warning and preparation. It's true that negotiations are sometimes very time sensitive, but actually choosing a house or a neighborhood involves some time and contemplation.
The modification of intuitive feel by more practical considerations based on knowledge and experience occurs throughout the animal kingdom. Humans may do it best, but also have the ability to jump headlong into an intuitive choice.
Consideration and appreciation of multiple facets forming the expectation of experiences living in a particular house should lead to wise decisions. Those may mean that an adorable house is revered for what it is, but is nonetheless deemed not appropriate as a favored choice as a residence. To borrow a Boston song title "It's more than a feeling".
Experience plays an important role. When my sorta ex wife and I moved to Cambria in 1992, we rented a most adorable English looking cottage with panoramic ocean views and soaring Monterey Pines nearby. We first saw it on glorious sunny day and it was purely magical. As time passed we discovered the roof leaked, the walls leaked, the garage had a dirt floor that became mud when that roof leaked too, there was minimal heat and pine trees tended to blow over in the wind storms. From that time forward little adorable English cottages create a different intuitive response in me. I still think they're cute, but the experiences recalled temper any inclination I might have to live in one again, unless I thoroughly checked out the systems beyond the image.
That's the hopeful path for wider adoption of green features in housing. They aren't going to be conspicuously sexy to compete on equal terms with the visual cues that fuel the feel. Nonetheless, if Buyers are made aware that some houses have a substantially smaller carbon footprint than others and that the planet Earth needs all the help it can get to continue providing habitable environments for human existence, that awareness may shape the final decision process.
It's unrealistic to expect buyers to choose ugly houses because they're "green", but they shouldn't need to. Green houses can be just as attractive as any others. There's also the option of taking a striking older home, already in place with embodied energy bought and paid for, and making it more green through retrofits.
These nuances in decision making create an incumbent need among the real estate development and marketing industries to educate the public along new dimensions ranging far beyond the classic way points of curb appeal and floor plan. Yes, that increases the complexity of decisions and will diminish perceived value among homes lacking green features or green potential. Homes have a long lifespan and to merely look the other way in favor of short term commission flow is disingenuous, even for real estate. It's not all about commission. Everything is ultimately about the planet and Mother Earth doesn't work on commission.
Sunday, April 4, 2010
feeling green?
Had a epiphany as I was running a couple days ago (still with Team in Training prepping for June 6th Rock m Roll Marathon in San Diego). Here's background and the framework of a possible resolution. I'm in the research process now to determine how much coverage there is in the literature.
The latest discontent arose when I started work on a tri fold flyer to provide to Realtors and the public at an Earth Day event in SLO on April 24th. A lot of intellectual progress happens when a previously held idea that should provide secure explanatory power, just causes a queasy feeling--and this is all about feeling.
If you've read earlier blog posts here, you know that I believe most buying decisions involving personal residences (and often other types of properties) are driven by gut instinct (aka feelings, emotional response, intuition, resonance, etc) RATHER than sound multivariate analysis of the property's many attributes. Moreover, MLS data does a pretty poor job of representing properties in ways that engender feelings. Photos hold some potential, but quality issues (display and photo skill) stand in the way. MLS data may provide some filtering effect, but reaction to a personal inspection of the house determines the decision and colors the perceived value in most cases.
All well and good, BUT here's where the "feeling green" issue enters the arena. Most green features are not readily apparent. Insulation, HVAC efficiency, appliance energy usage, window technology, embodied energy in the building materials, etc. are not easy to perceive, particularly upon approach and initial inspection of a house. That's the time when intuitive evaluation creates a FEEL for the house.
Obviously, one solution would be to ONLY look at homes with a certain minimum number of green features. Unfortunately, many agents don't put green in the MLS and few buyers are green to the extent that they'll calmly say---"the house does nothing for me, but it's got great green features so let's make an offer!"
Setting green aside for a moment, let's look at the intuitive vs analytical aspect of judgements and decisions. Intuition and feelings happen quickly--almost instantaneously (see Daniel Goleman's "Low Road" in Emotional Intelligence). Same thing happens in relationships. The infatuation effect--houses or people.
What are the consequences of infatuation--beyond the excitement of the moment?
The attributes that triggered the strong emotional response do not represent a full spectrum of the interactions and utilities that come to bear over the course of a longer term relationship--with house or person. It's a temporal matter. What happens after the decision? You LIVE in the house or WITH a partner, ie with the consequences of the decision. The quality of that post decision experience may involve attributes never perceived in the formation of initial infatuation.
Am I suggesting we shouldn't buy adorable houses or seek partners that we find unusually alluring? NOPE! The evolutionary path that created the "wiring" behind those compelling feelings should not be discounted, however the "High Road" analytical portions of the human brain can (with great effort--LOL) achieve awareness of the broader context within which decisions about a house or a partner are ultimately evaluated.
Moving forward with this line of reasoning raises the issue of achieving "awareness" that might play a role in the decision process, along with the strong initial emotional reaction to arcane cues that are perhaps not even known to the decision maker.
Next section will explore painting knowledge and experience onto the canvas of intuitive reaction.
The latest discontent arose when I started work on a tri fold flyer to provide to Realtors and the public at an Earth Day event in SLO on April 24th. A lot of intellectual progress happens when a previously held idea that should provide secure explanatory power, just causes a queasy feeling--and this is all about feeling.
If you've read earlier blog posts here, you know that I believe most buying decisions involving personal residences (and often other types of properties) are driven by gut instinct (aka feelings, emotional response, intuition, resonance, etc) RATHER than sound multivariate analysis of the property's many attributes. Moreover, MLS data does a pretty poor job of representing properties in ways that engender feelings. Photos hold some potential, but quality issues (display and photo skill) stand in the way. MLS data may provide some filtering effect, but reaction to a personal inspection of the house determines the decision and colors the perceived value in most cases.
All well and good, BUT here's where the "feeling green" issue enters the arena. Most green features are not readily apparent. Insulation, HVAC efficiency, appliance energy usage, window technology, embodied energy in the building materials, etc. are not easy to perceive, particularly upon approach and initial inspection of a house. That's the time when intuitive evaluation creates a FEEL for the house.
Obviously, one solution would be to ONLY look at homes with a certain minimum number of green features. Unfortunately, many agents don't put green in the MLS and few buyers are green to the extent that they'll calmly say---"the house does nothing for me, but it's got great green features so let's make an offer!"
Setting green aside for a moment, let's look at the intuitive vs analytical aspect of judgements and decisions. Intuition and feelings happen quickly--almost instantaneously (see Daniel Goleman's "Low Road" in Emotional Intelligence). Same thing happens in relationships. The infatuation effect--houses or people.
What are the consequences of infatuation--beyond the excitement of the moment?
The attributes that triggered the strong emotional response do not represent a full spectrum of the interactions and utilities that come to bear over the course of a longer term relationship--with house or person. It's a temporal matter. What happens after the decision? You LIVE in the house or WITH a partner, ie with the consequences of the decision. The quality of that post decision experience may involve attributes never perceived in the formation of initial infatuation.
Am I suggesting we shouldn't buy adorable houses or seek partners that we find unusually alluring? NOPE! The evolutionary path that created the "wiring" behind those compelling feelings should not be discounted, however the "High Road" analytical portions of the human brain can (with great effort--LOL) achieve awareness of the broader context within which decisions about a house or a partner are ultimately evaluated.
Moving forward with this line of reasoning raises the issue of achieving "awareness" that might play a role in the decision process, along with the strong initial emotional reaction to arcane cues that are perhaps not even known to the decision maker.
Next section will explore painting knowledge and experience onto the canvas of intuitive reaction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
