Tni Le Blanc

Hi Stephen,

I would say the shopping in Santa Maria is fair. We are the shopping destination of surrounding smaller communities such as Lompoc, Los Alamos and Nipomo. And, because the 5 cities / San Luis Obispo area blocked many big box and discount stores for many years we were the place to shop for many years. That is changing slowly but surely. For high end retailers you will have to go to San Luis Obispo or Santa Barbara to truly be satisfied. But, considering that all these areas are well within driving distance from Santa Maria, I think we have above average access to shopping even though it may not all be here in Santa Maria proper.

Hope this helps,

Tni - Wed Oct 29 2008, 20:56

Of course it depends on your field. Some are quite in demand in Santa Maria. The major employers are government entities, such as the county government. Also, nearby Vandenberg Air Force Base is a major employer. We are now the largest city in Santa Barbara county and we have all the typical businesses of a city of over 100,000. You should order a newcomer's packet from the Santa Maria Valley Chamber of Commerce, that will help fill you in. http://www.SantaMaria.com With the housing bust real estate prices are again starting to reflect local salaries which are not that high -- so if you are moving from another area in California the prices will look pretty good. http://www.ilovesantamaria.com

Hope this helps. Good luck! - Wed Oct 29 2008, 05:17

You can do a search of public records and find the owner of record. That should reveal the record legal owner. I hope that helps.

Tni LeBlanc, Broker/Owner - Fri Oct 24 2008, 17:28

James,

You raise an interesting point, and I think you have provided a useful example. I have worked as an attorney, and the number one complaint from clients when I worked in that field was an inability to control their legal fees. And, in fact, it is rather routine to perform legal services for people (to whom you owe duties) who are not actually paying you. Much of the time, private attorneys are paid by insurance companies and their true client is the insured. Conflicts arise often. Public defenders are paid by government localities, yet their clients are criminal defendants. What holds them accountable to their clients? Their professional duties, the standards of care in their field, and most importantly, their license to practice law.

Also, there are plenty of instances where the opposing party is responsible for paying for your legal fees. Such as in contingency fee cases where the attorney does not get paid unless they win, and then it comes out of a settlement paid by the opposing party, or when a contractual dispute arises and the losing party must pay the other side's reasonable attorney's fees. Many times, a statute will impose attorney fees to be paid by the loser and that makes that type of case more appealing to attorneys. In those situations, when the case resolves, your lawyer will have to justify their fees as "reasonable" to the other party despite what you have agreed to pay him or her. And curiously, I’ve found that clients are happiest when they are not paying your fee at all!

I think the medical field also provides another good example of where a professional owes you duties -- yet their bills are paid by insurance companies whose interest is many times adverse to you (i.e. holding down costs in your individual case). My point is this, there is a tendency to see the grass as being greener on another side. Since I've worked for clients on a per hour basis, transaction basis, and also on commission, I see the flaws in each. I’m not advocating for this model for real estate, I think there are problems, but we also have a profession where even those consumers with no down payment, or closing costs can find someone to represent their interests in a real estate transaction – and they get to pick who that person will be.

To your question, shouldn't the buyer be able to negotiate the fee the agent is paid -- I think that is appropriate if they were to pay you out of pocket which most buyers are unable or unwilling to do. You always get the best service and value when you pay up front and in cash. Contingency fee work for lawyers can break the bank as you outlay costs without knowing if it will pay off, and so can working with buyers. When you hire someone on contingency you pay them nothing up front, and they decide if your case is worthwhile and what percentage they will charge at the back end to compensate them for the risk. Agents are doing much the same thing with buyer agency. If you think their percentage is too high – cough up a retainer fee and hire someone else. I think consumers already have that same choice in real estate.

As for contingencies, you can put in many hours and get no compensation – a situation many buyers are pleased with if their efforts at buying are unsuccessful or their motivation diminishes. Honestly, I could see you objecting to this type of arrangement during a boom market -- but right now -- most of my buyers would be paying me more if they paid me per hour or on a transactional basis. Further, first time home buyers and no down payment buyers would be charged more by experienced agents because they take more of their valuable time. As a result I think they would end up getting mostly inexperienced agents to take them on as clients.

I agree that the duties of a real estate broker should be more apparent to agents and also consumers. Overall though, I do think it is too easy to get a real estate license. But, whether agents are aware of them or not, those duties do exist -- there is plenty of case law on them. Professional standards and duties make sure you do your job, regardless of who is paying you. Maybe you should shift your efforts to more education and training and defined standards in the industry? NAR has attempted to do this by establishing various standards and codes for Realtors, and I don’t think it is proper to characterize this as propaganda when they are essentially informing and reminding consumers (and agents) that agents have fiduciary duties. I think they are trying to elevate the impression of the profession and also raise awareness within the profession of existing duties.

I’m interested to hear your thoughts on this.

Tni - Thu Oct 9 2008, 18:13

James,

I am surprised that you've essentially characterized my answer as "propaganda." That's not exactly my thing. Since I come from a legal background, I will allow that I take fiduciary duty more seriously than some other real estate brokers. I consult with my clients prior to every offer to make sure their offer is in line with the market and would not stick my clients into a bad deal to make a quick buck for myself. Beyond the obvious, those kind of deals are just bad business. However, and here we may part company, I do believe even when people are determined to make a "bad purchase" (which does occur) they can benefit from some good advice.

Having an experienced buyer broker with you when you buy is equivalent to having an expert who has bought and sold hundreds of homes help you with your transaction. That agent has seen what other buyers want and can advise you about resale; they've heard the complaints after the sale; and they can help solve the inevitable snags in a transaction. Further, beyond fiduciary duty and expertise, buyer's agents provide a good deal of "service work." -- educating buyers, finding homes, previewing homes, showing homes, attending appointments, and administrative work.

You will notice that in my answer, I asked Jb whether he was receiving a discount in exchange for not using a buyer's agent. In my view, it may then have been worth it to pay separately for the contractual work. But if not, I believe my advice is both practical and sound. Most buyers do not want to pay an attorney up front and out of pocket to draft a contract (and in many cases the residential home purchase contracts they use are the same as the ones Realtors use).

I believe that it is unlikely that Jb would be getting a discount off the price in exchange for not using an agent, because as you acknowledge the commission has probably already been contractually arranged by a listing broker. So why then pay separately for an agent or attorney for a routine contract -- and then lose out on the expertise and service of an agent? Unless you believe that he would likely be worse off by having an agent. And here we may disagree -- if you choose wisely -- having an agent is better than not having an agent. Also, it may be difficult for an agent to simply be hired to "write a contract" anyway since they are not lawyers and merely fill out forms - some brokers would not permit it.

My clients that have resources have no problem with paying me a fee as a consultant or on an hourly basis. Most others consumers (especially first time buyers) simply don't have the means to do that -- they are in effect financing a whole host of services into that purchase. The 6% commission in your example will be paid to the listing broker anyway -- they have a contract, and they do not often decide to hand half over to a buyer -- but they will to another broker. So, why not get some service, expertise, and advice out of it?

To be fair, I realize part of your statement is a normative statement about the industry. And although I don't think you had the opportunity to spell out your proposal fully, I would welcome hearing it. My statement was meant to give this potential buyer the best practical advice with the market in its current form. Jb may not be interested in changing the entire system of compensation in the real estate industry; Jb may just want to buy a house.

Tni - Thu Oct 9 2008, 03:23

JB,

I'm at a loss. Why would you want a buyer's agent to write the contract if you don't want their assistance throughout the transaction? I would simply hire an attorney to write the contract. Of course, you would have to pay the attorney out of pocket and up front, and the buyers agent would be paid if and only if the transaction closed.

But, if you are willing to rely on a broker for arguably the most important part of transaction, when you have likely already effectively paid for their sevices through an asking price that takes into account the traditional way of purchasing/selling with brokers who are paid a commission, why wouldn't you let them represent you for the rest of the transaction?

Are you receiving a discount for not using a broker who will collect a commission? Again, as both an attorney and a broker, I'm at a loss for what you are gaining by doing things this way. Am I missing something?

Tni LeBlanc, JD, MA, e-PRO http://www.MintProp.com - Wed Oct 8 2008, 22:15

Anubha,

This home appears sold. You should send the listing agent an email directly.

Hope this helps.

Tni - Thu Oct 9 2008, 01:43