up or down, it doesn't matter. the seller is always going to think their property is worth more than it is.

Thank you Holein1,

"the reason most houses stay on the market an extended period of time is because the owner thinks it's worth more than the market will pay. they seldom listen to their agent until it's been months. "

That is exactly what I meant, that is the case in todays market, conversely in a up market, the listing agent would advice the owner that they can get more than what they expect for their house.

excuse me while I throw something from the peanut gallery...do you think a listing agent would consider listing a house at a price that was way too high, simply because their commission would be more?

the reason most houses stay on the market an extended period of time is because the owner thinks it's worth more than the market will pay. they seldom listen to their agent until it's been months.

Your right as always Lamppost.

I can see it now, a home owner wants to sell his/her house, the owner calls a Realtor to list it, the Realtor asks how much do you want to list it for? The owners says $X, what do you think? (to the Realtor), and then the Realtor just says ok, and offers no advice at all?

Realtor are salesmen/women, sure if a house has been on the market for awhile, like a lot are these days, they will ask the owner to go down on the asking price.

A little cut in the Realtors income, but hey, half a pecan is better than none at all.

A $10,000 price reduction is exactly that much to the home seller, but only a $600 cut in commission to the Realtor.

Of course a Realtor has a say in home prices, that is how they earn their money.

But never mind, you are right, hows the view from your self appointed throne btw?

Why what could you possible mean Lamppost?

Is there anything in my last post that is a untruth?

I'm am sure Mr. Swearingen doesn't really want property taxes to double or more, that isn't exactly a good selling point, but if the market could bear it, I am sure he wouldn't mind doubling his commissions.

Please... this report was complied by Lee Swearingen, a real estate broker. Mr. Swearingen will of course present a rosy forecast, that's how he earns his paycheck.

I am sure Mr. Swearingen would be absolutely thrilled if appraisal prices, double, tripled or even more. Mr. Swearingen is not concerned with the property tax a home owner will have to pay, his motivation is to sell a house to a buyer for the most money he can convince them to pay.

The higher the sale price, the higher Mr. Swearingen commission.

Lamppost stated: "Just to clarify, is that a NO, he hasn't made this presentation to the CAD board at their meetings?"

BS, it'd be good if you could make one of your simple phone calls to verify this. I think it'd be of great value to the readers to find out how they responded. I'm certain a lot of people would like to know. Posting their response could only help MO's case.

Lamppost said: "So he has contradicted himself in the very same sentence!"

He was addressing the Council minutes before they were to appoint a member to the CAD Board. He was stating they shouldn't automatically appoint a rep from D3 just because he was already on there. Where is the contradiction? Interestingly, they did exactly what he urged them not to do with no discussion.

Lamppost said: "Just to clarify, is that a NO, he hasn't made this presentation to the CAD board at their meetings?"

I have no idea. Where did you find that information?

spyderandfly said: Really? I thought he was making a case to point out disparities regarding appraisal values in different neighborhoods. Did I miss something?"

In the first video, he established that there was a disparity and asked that the City "be a dissenting voice" on the CAD Board. In the second video, he pushed for a more objective appointment process that might yield diversity on the CAD Board.

BS stated: "He was making the case for diversifying the City's representation on the CAD Board."

Really? I thought he was making a case to point out disparities regarding appraisal values in different neighborhoods. Did I miss something?

BS Stated: "Since the City Council appoints a member to that board, it was the appropriate venue."

I understand that. But wouldn't it make more sense to address the CAD board directly (exposure to 6/6 members, rather than 1/6 members)? Has that been done? What was their response?

Just curious.

spyderandfly said: "It seems that's a more appropriate venue (straight to the source) than CC or Council meetings."

He was making the case for diversifying the City's representation on the CAD Board. Since the City Council appoints a member to that board, it was the appropriate venue.

Lamppost,

I think you're interpretation is a stretch. He made the case for the disparity, explained why he thought it was a problem (as you quoted), and offered a solution to diversify representation on the CAD Board to make sure the appointee has a vested interest in ensuring fairness. I was at that meeting and am well aware of his motives. Do you see a problem with rotating different Council members onto the CAD Board? Did you watch the next video where he explains he isn't supposing a conspiracy?

Has MO made this presentation to the CAD board at their meetings?

It seems that's a more appropriate venue (straight to the source) than CC or Council meetings.

Lamppost,

Matt was obviously illuminating the disparity between neighborhoods, NOT the overall upward trend as you've claimed. He presented the evidence of disparity and asked the Council's representative on the CAD Board to consider these things when making decisions that might ensure fairness. Polasek's rebuttal skirted the crux of Matt's argument of there being potential for an overall flaw in the way appraisals are determined, not the value one specific property. He said the Council appointee "should be a dissenting voice whenever we continue to hire the same people year after year."

He follows up on the City's CAD Board appointment here:
www.tinyurl.com/Matt-Ocker-Council-10...

What data is this realtor looking at because the charts next to his little summary show a year over year decline in both median price and average sales price. An increasing amount of inventory coupled with a decline in price doesn't sound like a healthy or recovering market to me. Stagnant at best.

Thanks Lamppost... Worth watching, the especially the rebuttal.

Yes, what's so odd about that? We're all aware of the housing bubble.

what's odd about that? don't they assess taxes on the property's assessed value?