This is sorta a follow-up to the Anaheim meetings regarding the "Realtor Party" and it's relationship to traditional left/right ideologies. The PAC monies from the state and national association action funds are indeed distributed to both sides of the isle. See Open Secrets for an education on the allocations. There are fewer Republicans so the distribution of funds per candidate doesn't reflect the distribution per party. The key is that voting record on real estate related issues is the extent of the consideration. The remainder of the recipients voting and other activities is not considered, including deranged comments to the press and receipt of other campaign contributions from other PACs. Whatever the PACs and positions, it's all fine if the voting record on real estate matters measures up. I'm sure the many right leaning members of the state association are inflamed that some of the pinko progressives on the left fringe get real estate PAC money, just like the few liberal progressive members cringe at the thought of their PAC contributions going to a radical pro life candidate.
The real question is whether supporting correct voting on real estate related matters is getting in the way of electing quality candidates. The recent performance of Congress could dispute the wisdom of focusing on one aspect of a politicians voting record. We need better people in Washington. Much better people. Another failing is that the PAC monies dolled out for real estate voting records do NOTHING to build a middle to the political spectrum. Having an extreme far right/tea party group on one side and a not so progressive left on the other with little in the middle is clearly not working. There are essentially no moderates and no inclination to be bipartisan at anything more contentious than a July 4th BBQ.
The real question is whether supporting correct voting on real estate related matters is getting in the way of electing quality candidates. The recent performance of Congress could dispute the wisdom of focusing on one aspect of a politicians voting record. We need better people in Washington. Much better people. Another failing is that the PAC monies dolled out for real estate voting records do NOTHING to build a middle to the political spectrum. Having an extreme far right/tea party group on one side and a not so progressive left on the other with little in the middle is clearly not working. There are essentially no moderates and no inclination to be bipartisan at anything more contentious than a July 4th BBQ.
Back to Anaheim. A brief comment about the process at the state association exemplified by Land Use and Environmental motions/discussion of Prop 23. The whole process might have unfolded more smoothly if an overview of the significance of the various possible positions the state association could take had been presented by the Chair, or the state or national political lobbyists BEFORE discussion commenced at the microphone. People like to make decisions and take stands---up or down. The so called “Realtor Party” is allegedly neither right nor left, but it is important to realize that it has a delicate existence only in a very tightly defined political habitat where an immediate, direct and readily apparent nexus exists between the issue at hand and the interests of the real estate industry (and in most cases, current buyers and sellers). If the nexus is clouded, a half step removed, results from a secondary effect or is fuzzy in any other way, discussion of the issue in committee tends to depart the bounds of the Realtor Party and revert to conventional right/left political ideology. The results are predictable, but not always in the best interest of the organization, because legislators, real estate practitioners (and the public) span a much broader spectrum of political beliefs than those attending CAR meetings. There are allegedly liberal progressives among the state directors, but I'm not sure I've ever seen one admit to it. Where there is a range of opinions among the directors and an uncertainty about the actual effect of the proposition, a neutral position is clearly the best outcome. The neutral position to a long way around and there was considerable doubt on the way to the floor of the directors session. In addition, a “For” position would have created ripples in the energy/environmental arena impacting CAR's credibility in commenting on future legislation with much more direct importance to real estate.
On more random political observation. Regulation and control take on an ominous meaning for many purporting to be conservatives--unless THEY are doing the regulating and exerting the control. Governmental bodies are most often associated with regulation, but in the absence of governmental regulation we don't actually have a lack of regulation, we have regulation by the private sector. Deregulation of the banking industry produced regulations crafted by the banking industry. Does anyone feel all comfy after the banks regulated the public into an epic fiasco of lending largess that produced world wide ripples that may not attenuate during my lifetime? There is little real difference between the regulatory greed of big government as compared to big corporations, who in turn have big PACs to influence big government to selectively defer regulation to the big corporations.
The state and national real estate associations have a plan for how the public should buy and sell residential property. Through their products, training and forms they attempt to regulate the residential sales arena (commercial is a whole 'nother story). They want to keep the banks out of real estate and keep the government out of real estate so they can regulate it themselves. As I've posted before, in many cases what's good for the trade associations, the industry and the brokers is good for the consumers, but not always. Where interests don't coincide, as is the case with green issues, such as energy labeling, the real estate trade organizations follow their doctrines to a fault. The public can push back and have whatever kind of real estate experience they want--fiduciary duty and all that---but only if they know where their interests really lie. In an industry measured by GCC (gross closed commissions) the level of effort to educate consumers is seldom noteworthy.
In a final note, I will be joyous when this election is over. The candidates, the mud, the rhetoric and the posturing have explored heretofore unimaginable depths of political depravity. Time will tell, but there may be no real winners on November 3rd.
On more random political observation. Regulation and control take on an ominous meaning for many purporting to be conservatives--unless THEY are doing the regulating and exerting the control. Governmental bodies are most often associated with regulation, but in the absence of governmental regulation we don't actually have a lack of regulation, we have regulation by the private sector. Deregulation of the banking industry produced regulations crafted by the banking industry. Does anyone feel all comfy after the banks regulated the public into an epic fiasco of lending largess that produced world wide ripples that may not attenuate during my lifetime? There is little real difference between the regulatory greed of big government as compared to big corporations, who in turn have big PACs to influence big government to selectively defer regulation to the big corporations.
The state and national real estate associations have a plan for how the public should buy and sell residential property. Through their products, training and forms they attempt to regulate the residential sales arena (commercial is a whole 'nother story). They want to keep the banks out of real estate and keep the government out of real estate so they can regulate it themselves. As I've posted before, in many cases what's good for the trade associations, the industry and the brokers is good for the consumers, but not always. Where interests don't coincide, as is the case with green issues, such as energy labeling, the real estate trade organizations follow their doctrines to a fault. The public can push back and have whatever kind of real estate experience they want--fiduciary duty and all that---but only if they know where their interests really lie. In an industry measured by GCC (gross closed commissions) the level of effort to educate consumers is seldom noteworthy.
In a final note, I will be joyous when this election is over. The candidates, the mud, the rhetoric and the posturing have explored heretofore unimaginable depths of political depravity. Time will tell, but there may be no real winners on November 3rd.
No comments:
Post a Comment