The Property Pontiffs

California Spirals Downward, the madness continues

California’s long spiral downward….could get worse,

Ok so it’s July and well we are still here, we are still alive, maybe not alive and kicking, but alive none the less.  However, every day I just have to shake my head and wonder where the heck we get our state legislators?  What world do they live in?  Do they not see what we see?  Can they not understand what they are trying to do and have done is only going to make it worse?

The sad answer to all these questions is NO.  The far left have run this sate and have been in control of ALL levels of this state for a long, long time.  What do they have to show for it?  Well let us see:

The lowest rated schools in the nation

One of the Highest income tax rates in the country

Unbearable worker’s comp rates

Extremely unfriendly business environment

Highest paid school administrators in the country

WAY WAY WAY too much Union control over every aspect of our lives

Highest Sales Tax in the country

Some of the highest DMV rates in the country

Lowest pass rate on the high school exit exam in the country (not a surprise why they canceled it and no longer want to give it)

One of the highest illegal alien population in the country (And don’t just think it’s all from Mexico (all you minutemen out there))

High corporation taxes

High estate tax rates

High capital gains rate taxes

Highest total of Gas taxes

WE ALREADY HAVE A CAP AND TRADE FAILURE ON ENERGY in this state (we had it for years and it has only made energy MORE costly and raised our taxes on it)

High property tax and property transfer fees and taxes as well as codes in order to sell your home.

Unlicensed and unregulated Department of corporations finance lenders throughout the state

The largest most bloated constitution in the country AND we even beat out some countries for length

Rampant welfare fraud, worker’s comp fraud, medi-cal fraud, insurance fraud

With all this and much more, what is Sacramento democrats, and their union thugs want now?  More taxes….oh, oh, sorry they call it “Revenue”, and they don’t want to really cut spending at all.  Sure they want to threaten that they’ll cut emergency services or throw poor children out into the street.  Will they cut their own salaries?  Cut their staff?  Cutoff all their own perks (such as travel, hotel, food, car expenses, personal phones, personal assistants, and vacation pay)?   No, will they cut back on the per-dium and salaries paid to the thousands of board and committee members?

Assembly woman Noreen Evans a few days ago before a conference committee on the budget. “This mantra out there ‘live within our means,’ while it sounds really nice, while it sounds really simple and it sounds really responsible, it’s meaningless”

They want to say that they don’t want to hurt the poor and yet they raise sales taxes, they raise DMV fees, and they raise gas taxes, ALL of which hurt the poor, and everyone I might add.  They don’t want to cut their own salaries and perks and yet they want us to sacrifice.  They don’t want to live within their means and yet we are expected to when really no one can right now.

It is bad, and by all accounts when the legislators call up the union bosses to get their marching orders ( http://weblog.signonsandiego.com/weblogs/afb/archives/034764.html ) , and the legislators DON’T live in the real world, it is only going to get worse before it gets better.  There are calls for a constitutional convention (I am all for it), and a call for their heads to be put on a stick.  We unfortunately have a congress who also believe that they only way to save us all, is for us to sacrifice more and pay more taxes,  spend trillions more money, increase our national debt by 4 fold, and have the government control even more of our lives and our industries (they now run the automobile industry, own all the major banks, want to own and control energy, oil, and gas, and soon want to take over our health care system).  We all need to stop, regroup and find out what makes us special, what makes us special is simple, we’re Americans, not Europeans, we founded this country on get the government the heck out of our way and stop taxing us to death.  However, recently (EVEN G.W. is to blame) our governments have decided that more government control, more government programs, more government spending, and to pay for it more revenue (taxes) is the answer.

We need to look to what works in this country and let individuals take control of their destiny, and fortunes.  We Californians have been known for some serious innovation and true grit and gumption in the past.  We need to start with what we know is true, that government is not our solution it is our problem (as someone said in the past (hmm A Californian too)), kick the circus out of Sacramento, and start all over.  We have to acknowledge our failures, acknowledge that recently we took for granted all that we were supposedly earning in the real estate market, and know that we cannot do business the same again.  We cannot raise taxes and expect the economy to turn around.  We need to tighten our belts and see government for what it is, and what it is not, and see where the gap is.  Here is another great article showing California’s problems …. http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13990207

Let us revolt, feel patriotic again, and gain some self control back! Good luck everyone and I hope we all can find a solution to all that ails us in this Golde

Good blog entry, ANOTHER confirming view

here is a quick blog I read recently which states a report that confirms what we have been saying, BANKS are not cooperating and they don't want to.  Don't feel sorry for the banks! here we go, go to it, it also has some other great articles

great blog!

http://www.californiadebtblog.com/

here is a link to the article as well.... http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2009/07/07/lenders_avoid_redoing_loans_fed_concludes/

http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c6e4553ef011570e0a893970c

pushing daisies

If you could bring back a canceled tv series, which would you choose?
Submitted by The Good Girl Gone Blog.

Frustrating Short-Sales: Posted By Realtor Sara Griffin

There are a number of frustrations when having to deal with short-sales. First off, each bank has different standards as to the timelines in getting paperwork pushed through for approvals or assignment to the negotiators. Each representative that I speak with has different timelines as to how long it will take to get short-sales approved and to whom the paperwork has to reach to be approved. Some individuals reveal that it will take between 15-30 days, continuing to push the dates back further and further, until the buyer’s agent, buyers, listing agents, and sellers are all extremely frustrated and discouraged with the process. Some banks announce from the beginning that their process could take several months.  A minimum of three months has passed and nothing has been accomplished in most cases. Second, the guidelines and response times need to be set the same for every bank. There needs to be a national standard that the banks follow as to the response times. Every bank has set their own standards, and when speaking with a different representative each time you call in, some cannot even find the paperwork in the computer or off of the fax after it has been sent numerous times before, and the destructive cycle continues. Third, the passing of the short-sale packages from employee to employee and loss of faxes due to the fact that there are several fax numbers becomes frustrating and tiring day after day.  Many phone numbers that when called lead to a dead line.

            The bottom line is that there needs to be consistent structure within the individual banks, and the regulators need to write laws with specific guidelines as to how the banks structure themselves. Once the specific guidelines are written, the banks would have only so much time to approve the short sales. As an example, it should take 15 days for the short-sale packages to be assigned to the negotiator, then another 15 days from that point to get the information to the investor who only has possibly another week or so to agree to the terms of the offer, and submission back to the bank. At this point the appraisal is already done, the short-sale and offer from a buyer are approved, and escrow begins. This process would improve the waiting time from the beginning if all worked toward reaching the set standards.

             Once the negotiator has been assigned, we as agents working on behalf of our clients need to be able to get a hold of the representative handling the account. It is understood that these individuals are extremely busy, but not being able to even get a name or number of a negotiator leads to frustration and discouragement. I as an agent need to be able to call or email the negotiator if need be, so this information should be in the computer system readily available the moment I or any other agent calls in to discuss the account. It is pointless to call in to speak with someone who is unaware of the information on the account, then shuffles the phone call until a dead phone line is reached.  There needs to be universal fax numbers to individuals assigned to the accounts. Once that certain account is faxed in, it needs to be directed to the appropriate person by way of last four digits of account or so on, and used consistently within the banks as to the work flow. There are a number of banks that are able to pull the accounts up and view them from the moment the paperwork is sent through the computer, and they are on your tail to get the paperwork in on time. If only each bank was this organized and consistent, the frustrations would end. As a Realtor, I along with many agree that we have a strong hand in leading the negotiations behind the law makers and are available to put forth as much if not more time and energy to help solve these problems and frustrations as we have sitting on the phone on hold waiting to speak with a representative at the banks.

Sara Griffin

Obama's compromised promises..continues

It seems the infallible Mr. Obama has his faults showing early, this was a recent article explaining these, there are more, but this is a quick article. we have made our thoughts after this article.

Obama’s Pledge to Reform Ethics Faces an Early Test

By PETER BAKER

Published: February 2, 2009

WASHINGTON — During almost two years on the campaign trail, Barack Obamavowed to slay the demons of Washington, bar lobbyists from his administration and usher in what he would later call in his Inaugural Address a “new era of responsibility.” What he did not talk much about were the asterisks.

The exceptions that went unmentioned now include a pair of cabinet nominees who did not pay all of their taxes. Then there is the lobbyist for a military contractor who is now slated to become the No. 2 official in the Pentagon. And there are the others brought into government from the influence industry even if not formally registered as lobbyists.

President Obamasaid Monday that he was “absolutely” standing behind former Senator Tom Daschle, his nominee for health and human services secretary, and Mr. Daschle, who met late in the day with leading senators in an effort to keep his confirmation on track, said he had “no excuse” and wanted to “deeply apologize” for his failure to pay $128,000 in federal taxes.

But the episode has already shown how, when faced with the perennial clash between campaign rhetoric and Washington reality, Mr. Obama has proved willing to compromise.

Every four or eight years a new president arrives in town, declares his determination to cleanse a dirty process and invariably winds up trying to reconcile the clear ideals of electioneering with the muddy business of governing. Mr. Obama on his first day in office imposed perhaps the toughest ethics rules of any president in modern times, and since then he and his advisers have been trying to explain why they do not cover this case or that case.

“This is a big problem for Obama, especially because it was such a major, major promise,” said Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. “He harped on it, time after time, and he created a sense of expectation around the country. This is exactly why people are skeptical of politicians, because change we can believe in is not the same thing as business as usual.”

And so in these opening days of the administration, the Obama team finds itself being criticized by bloggers on the left and the right, mocked by television comics and questioned by reporters about whether Mr. Obama is really changing the way Washington works or just changing which political party works it.

Some Republicans saw a double standard. “What would it be like if Hank Paulson had come in without paying his taxes, or any other member of the cabinet?” asked Terry Nelson, a political strategist who worked for President George W. Bushand Senator John McCain, referring to Mr. Bush’s Treasury secretary. “It would be roundly attacked and roundly criticized.”

Several Democrats, including some who have advised Mr. Obama, said privately that he had only himself to blame for delivering such an uncompromising message as a candidate without recognizing how it would complicate his ability to assemble an administration.

In the campaign, Mr. Obama assailed Washington’s “entire culture” in which “our leaders have thrown open the doors of Congress and the White House to an army of Washington lobbyists who have turned our government into a game only they can afford to play.” He vowed to “close the revolving door” and “clean up both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue” with “the most sweeping ethics reform in history.”

The language, however, was always more sweeping than the specifics. He spoke of refusing campaign money from lobbyists but took it from the people who hired them. The ethics plan he outlined, and eventually imposed on his administration, did not ban all lobbyists outright but set conditions for their employment and did not cover many who were lobbyists in everything but name.

Mr. Daschle, for instance, is not a registered lobbyist, but he made a handsome living advising clients seeking influence with the government, including some in the health industry. Mr. Obama also gave himself the right to grant waivers in cases he deemed exceptional, most prominently to William J. Lynn III, an ex-Raytheon lobbyist he nominated as deputy defense secretary. Others were lobbyists more than two years ago, and therefore not covered by the Obama rules.

Some who worked as lobbyists have found places in the administration, including Mark Patterson, who represented Goldman Sachs and is now chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner. William V. Corr, who lobbied for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, has been selected as deputy health and human services secretary.

Obama advisers said that the exceptions were minimal given the thousands to be hired and that appointees would be barred from work on issues they lobbied on in the last two years. The exceptions, they said, were needed for particular skills and experience.

Some advocates said the rules were still more significant than any previously imposed. “This is a direct attack on the culture of Washington and in an extremely powerful way,” said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, an advocacy group.

As for Mr. Daschle and Mr. Geithner, who also failed to pay some taxes, White House officials said the errors should not obscure their records. Mr. Obama “believes that both Secretary Geithner and Secretary-Designate Daschle are the right people for very important jobs,” said Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, “and he does not believe that that will undercut their ability to move forward on an agenda that makes sense for the American people.”

That argument has drawn sharp criticism from left and right. “Is this really the message he wants to convey to voters in just his first month in office, a message that it’s O.K. to break or skirt the law just as long as you’re a good guy with a special skill set?” asked Andy Ostroy, a blogger writing on The Huffington Post, a liberal Web site.

Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of The Nation, a liberal magazine, said Mr. Obama should withdraw Mr. Daschle’s nomination to “revive the change brand he campaigned and won on.”

Mr. Obama is running into crosscurrents that bedeviled his predecessors. Jimmy Carterpromised a new day in Washington after Watergate but still found top associates caught up in scandal. Bill Clintonpromised “the most ethical administration in history” and then endured the most independent counsel investigations in history. Mr. Bush vowed a new era of responsibility only to be accused of selling out to energy and military industries.

Jody Powell, who was Mr. Carter’s press secretary and later founded a prominent lobbying firm, said it was better to establish lofty goals that might not be met than to not have any at all.

“If you set standards, you’re going to fall short on occasion and you’re going to have to compromise on occasion,” Mr. Powell said. “But you’re probably also going to get more done.”

David D. Kirkpatrick contributed reporting.

A version of this article appeared in print on February 3, 2009, on page A1 of the New York edition.

ok, so here is our 8 cents worth (hey we're pontiffs we are worth more than 2 cents  ;-) -----)

In business if a company strives for a brand that states one thing but delivers another, they go out of business or at least get a reputation for not delivering on their promise. It is a stigma that just wont go away that easy. We all fail to live up to expectations we set for ourselves and others from time to time (some times the client is just wrong!)  it is not something we do all the time, but it will happen.  So what do we do?

What we try to do with our clients, agents, and employees is build trust, trust is important, it is crucial. In everything we do we explain the positives AND the negatives of a transaction; we explain to them what should happen and what can happen in any given transaction.  we also tell them that things may go wrong but that we promise to fix them right away.  They know we are not perfect, but that they can trust us to do our best, and when we don't meet our best, we will do everything we can to fix it. What this does is build trust between us and the client.  Our image of always striving for our best is kept intact and we have the flexibility of making mistakes. 

Mr. Obama and the media have created a brand of infallibility and highest excellence, this cannot be achieved in the highly complicated world of politics and power.  I do not excuse him from these blatant attempts at "do as I say not as I do," attitude, it is his own fault.  The public will slowly (A lot slower than if he was a part of a different administration or party) lose trust, and without trust, the mistakes will only compound.  All of us should always strive for goals, but not absolutes. Mr. Obama has set himself up for an unachievable goal and when it comes down to it, a goal he is not really trying to achieve, so in reality it is just rhetoric.

We do not believe that politicians or business owners should strive for mediocrity, not at all, we should put high standards and stick to them and make the tough decisions that need to be made and swallow the pride when necessary.  A skill Mr. Obama seems to be lacking.

If we say we will do all we can for the client and it comes down to paying a part of our commissions to get it done, or possibly driving an hour and 1/2 (which we have done many times) to finish the job for the client, then we do it.

When these issues came up about the numerous administration oversights, Mr. Obama should have simply stated that it was unacceptable and stuck to his promises. But even during the campaign we saw MANY current and former lobbyists working in his campaign and now it continues with the Clinton all-stars and many lobbyists and tax evaders in his cabinet and potential nominees. So where is the change?

Make the hard decisions, don't compromise values for expediency, always strive for the best, but build trust by letting your clients (and the American people) know that you will always strive for those values but you are not infallible and when a mistake occurs, own up and swallow your pride to fix it. that way you don't tarnish the image you are attempting to get people to believe in.  We like the phrase "striving for excellence," because it is showing that it is ongoing, something you see, and you will always strive to do.

good luck all!