http://pleasantonweekly.com/square/print/index.php?i=3&d=1&t=6701


Town Square

When Don Faught speaks, other Realtors listen

Original post made by Jeb Bing, editor of the Pleasanton Weekly, on Feb 25, 2011

When Don Faught speaks, others listen, or at least other Realtors did last week when Faught talked about the changing work environment in real estate to a large audience at the Valley Real Estate Network meeting at Tommy T's. Faught, vice president of Alain Pinel Realty and managing broker, has been in the business for 24 years, the last eight at here in Pleasanton. With new regulations, a tight mortgage money market and banked-owned (REO) and short sales now accounting for 40% of all home sales, the good old days of handshake deals and quick transactions by home buyers and sellers are over.

This story contains 727 words.

If you are a paid subscriber, check to make sure you have logged in. Otherwise our system cannot recognize you as having full free access to our site.

If you are a paid print subscriber and haven't yet set up an online account, click here to get your online account activated.

Comments

Like this comment
Posted by One size doesn't fit
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 25, 2011 at 10:03 am

Again, and again, folks from Toledo, Tulsa, Timbuckkto,and Omaha write laws and set standard US charts for National LIMITS to income for college loans, home price limits for Fannie and Freddie for all sorts of programs, income taxes for workers, on and on, etc.
Our area is left out or treated differently than the rest of the country. DC treats the GREATER Bay Area differently than 99% of the country, which is very unfair to us. Incomes and home prices in 99% of the country are very different than this area. But . . . .
Mz Speaker Pelosi nor Mr McNerney never stood up on any of these issues defending our 9-10 counties that get the raw end, no matter the issue.
Many times in the last 2-3 years, I couldn't understand that they wouldn't stand up for residents of the Greater Bay Area...yet, no matter how badly CAifornians get excluded from the nation, they continue to elect the same people, so nothing ever changes.


Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Feb 25, 2011 at 10:16 am

Stacey is a registered user.

Didn't you know that because of wealth distribution in the US us rich folk in California must be taxed more?


Like this comment
Posted by One size doesn't fit
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 25, 2011 at 11:28 am

Faught's 'Jumbo' loan limits is a perfect example...it works for DesMoines, Nashville, and Santa Fe, but it does not work for Petaluma or Pleasanton...I'm not talking just SanFran and PaloAlto.
MzSpeaker controlled the agenda. You'd think being from CA she would have spoken up for us on a long list of mistreatments like the jumbo loan and all the special mortgage situations 2 years ago.
Income taxes from 'higher' incomes and higher home prices here are very different than the comparable houses that only cost $300,000. in the rest of the US, and our income which sound high to the Senators from Iowa...think rich BayAreans who have to commute in 2 cars going different directions, have triple house prices, higher income TAXES....so college loans, jumbo loans, or any US gov't chart discriminates against us ! One size does not fit all.


Like this comment
Posted by concerned buyer
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 25, 2011 at 11:54 am

"home price limits for Fannie and Freddie for all sorts of programs"

You are aware that the jumbo loan limits are much higher in the Bay Area than in " Toledo, Tulsa,...", right.

Regarding Fanny, Freddie, tax deduction on interest, and all the other stuff the government does to "encourage home-ownership", you'd think maybe we would learn the lesson that inflating asset bubbles leads to downturns like the one we've just been through. Maybe it is time to get the government out of the business of encouraging home-ownership.


Like this comment
Posted by concerned buyer
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 25, 2011 at 11:58 am

"Faught's 'Jumbo' loan limits is a perfect example...it works for DesMoines, Nashville, and Santa Fe, but it does not work for Petaluma or Pleasanton...I'm not talking just SanFran and PaloAlto."

Disagree. It doesn't work anywhere. Government sponsored entities should not be setting thresholds for load guarantees. Does anyone realize we just experienced the popping of a real estate bubble, and that has had a devastating effect on the economy? The Bay Area already has a higher jumbo limit ($729,000) than most of the rest of the country. Property values remain inflated. We need to get the GSEs out of this business altogether.


Like this comment
Posted by system unfair
a resident of Pleasanton Heights
on Feb 25, 2011 at 2:08 pm

There should be no tax incentive for home ownership at all. Canada has never allow tax deductions for mortgage interest and they have never taxed the gain on the sale of homes. Realtors are only too happy to encourage buyers into contracts that they cannot afford because the 6% commissions are so tempting. The buyers get to take tax deductions and then default on the loans with no tax consequences at all. The rest of us pick up the cost.
How about this for being more fair:
When a realtor sells a home to what is actually an unqualified buyer, who later defaults, the realtor has to pay back the commission earned into a fund to offset the bailouts.
When a mortgage broker writes a loan for an unqualified buyer, who later defaults, he has to repay the commission also.
When a buyer who was greedy/stupid/or both defaults on the loan they have to amend their tax returns to pay back the taxes that they saved since the government is making the rest of us pay for their default.
If the profit motive was not there for these people to overinflate and oversell properties much of the problem would never have happened.


Like this comment
Posted by One size doesn't fit
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 25, 2011 at 7:27 pm

So, concerned and system,you want to change the topic from discrimination to elimination. Elimination is OK with me, but this thread is about the abusive open discrimination specifically against the people of the greater Bay Area. So, you think it's OK for OUR government to selectively discriminate against us? That we pay for our 'differences'. I say our 'NET' taxes or opportunities should be equalized, so when 2 houses are idential in every way, one owner pays $700k so is called rich because of the price and is thus not eliglble for programs, the other identical home owner is called average because his home is only $300k in the midwest. OUR government is not treating us equal, when going by the numbers. Yes, if the government discriminates or favors, then it should not do 'whatever' at all.