Commentaries dealing with real estate, general plans, and similar matters (except Affordable Housing, which has its own section) can be found below.

1. Napa County's Constitutional Convention
2. Napa City Council Should Approve the Draft Housing Element
3. Common Courtesy, Professionalism and Dual Agency
4. Three "Commercial Corner" columns from The Napa Valley Register
5. Ten "The Chairman's Corner" columns from the NorBAR News (North Bay Association of Relators, covering Napa, Sonoma, Lake and Mendocino Counties)
6. Installation Remarks [as incoming President] to the North Bay Association of Realtors, January 2002
7. Installation Remarks [as incoming Chapter President] to the Napa Chapter of North Bay Association of Realtors, January 19, 1990

Napa County’s Constitutional Convention

by Skip Keyser

(Originally published in The Napa Valley Register, April 27, 2005)

Recently the Leadership Napa Valley Foundation hosted a forum, moderated by former City of Napa police chief Dan Monez, on Napa County’s upcoming general plan revision. The keynote speaker was Howard Siegel, Napa County’s Community Partnership Manager and although this forum lasted more than an hour, it became readily apparent that what was being discussed was a process amounting to a constitutional convention for Napa County.

Napa County, of course, does not have a constitution per se, but it does have – as required by Section 65300 of California’s Government Code – a general plan. And courts have increasingly viewed the general plan of each county (and city) as its constitution, particularly for land use.

In Napa County, land use is significant – even crucial – to maintaining the county’s unique rural and agrarian nature. As codified in Measures A and J, and as underlined in recent difficulties with the Airport Specific Plan and certification of the county’s Housing Element, land use decisions impact virtually every sector of life in Napa County, economic, educational and environmental.

And while “unique rural and agrarian nature” may be a trite and shopworn phrase, it nevertheless remains the salient aspect of Napa County that is envied by most who work, reside or visit here. Directly or indirectly, we all, whether we live in the incorporated or unincorporated areas of the county, benefit from or at the very least are impacted by this aspect.

For those who did not have the opportunity to attend one of the many public workshops conducted by the county over the past couple of months, or who have not availed themselves of the background information available on the county’s website (www.co.napa.ca.us, click on “General Plan Update”), general plans contain seven mandatory elements (land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, noise and safety) to which optional elements can be added depending on the demands and nature of the individual city or county.

In Napa County’s current general plan, the elements are Land Use, Housing, Circulation, Conservation & Open Space, Seismic Safety, Safety, and Noise along with three optional elements: Growth Management, School Facilities and Scenic Highways. Not surprisingly, it is anticipated that new elements will be proposed, or existing elements combined or separated as the documents needed to underpin and support the General Plan itself, the Baseline Data Report (which provides current information on environmental and resource conditions) and the Environmental Impact Report (which addresses compliance with CEQA - the California Environmental Quality Act), are developed and adopted by the county.

Of equal importance is the requirement for general plans to be integrated and internally consistent, a requirement that is often the basis for legal challenges to land use decisions and the Achilles heel of general plans.

It should therefore come as no surprise that competing forces within Napa County are gearing up for what has to be the preeminent local governmental decision of this – indeed of the next several – decades. While the current general plan has not been completely revised since its adoption in 1983, Napa County’s new general plan, as envisioned by the Board of Supervisors, will be used to guide the county for the next 20 to 30 years. And with the population of California – currently about 35 million and already home to one of every seven individuals living in the United States – projected to increase to just under 60 million by 2040, putting together a general plan able to withstand the pressures and inevitable legal challenges will be no mean feat.

That’s why it is heartening that Napa County will appoint a steering committee of approximately 20 residents to work on the general plan revision. It’s not that county staff or elected or appointed officials could not do this job. Indeed they all will play a significant role in the process that will lead to a new general plan. But the views, concerns and hopes of the residents of Napa County, both those who live in the unincorporated area and those who live in each of its cities, are too varied and too important not to involve citizens at the very start of the process.

That’s why it’s also important for as many of these diverse and competing views to be represented on this steering committee. Each of the various economic, social and cultural elements that make up Napa County should strive to be represented, particularly the Hispanic community.

This is not the time to let someone else do it. As far as the future of Napa County and its cities are concerned, if you’re not educated about and involved with the process that will map the county’s future for the next two to three decades, you have no one to blame about how it turns out.

Keyser writes from Napa

Napa City Council Should Approve

the Draft Housing Element

by Skip Keyser

(Originally published by The Napa Valley Register, August 7, 2001)

The Napa City Council has before it the opportunity to create a legacy as important to the future of the City of Napa as Measure A and Measure J have been to the future of Napa County. I speak of the draft Housing Element revision to the General Plan.

Certainly no council member and few members of the public need to be reminded of the housing affordability crisis with which California in general and Napa in particular are struggling. There is a critical shortage of affordable housing in Napa, even for those earning up to 120 percent of the median income (i.e., up to $66,840 for a family of four). This shortage threatens the continued viability of our world-class city. Yet little has been done.

Now, with the unique and creative Housing Element drafted by 15 individuals from widely different background and constituencies, aided by input from the public, city staff and others, something can be done. For this Housing Element goes beyond the minimum requirement to put in place a plan that might work and actually provides a plan that will guarantee the development of equitable amounts of housing, including special needs housing, for all segments of Napa’s population. In other words, it can actually get attractive, well-planned, moderately priced housing built.

But this plan is not without its detractors.

Despite the fact that the plan is created of tightly-woven complimentary recommendations that will work together to create needed housing, those opposed to creating an equitable inventory of housing for all of Napa’s citizens have started to pick away at selected portions.

Items such as the amnesty program for already-built second units, dedicated funding for affordable housing, a growth pacing strategy, density bonuses, elimination of the already-breached feathering policy, provision for required second units, and affordable housing overlay zones have come under attack.

This is death by a thousand cuts.

Worse yet, these attacks have the unforeseen potential to threaten the Rural-Urban Limits (RULs) that safeguard the unique nature of Napa Valley.

The long and short of the housing situation in the City of Napa (and Yountville, St. Helena and Calistoga) is that absent creative and thoughtful use of the limited land inside the RUL, there will be increasing pressure to expand or develop outside the RUL.

If we are to maintain the agricultural nature of Napa County, the RUL must remain in place. If we are to maintain the RUL in place, we must develop housing inside the RUL. It’s as simple as that and we can’t have it both ways.

To this end, the proposed Housing Element recommends:

Granny Units – in those new developments of more than 10 homes, at least 20 percent of the units must contain a second (“Granny”) unit. Such a requirement will actually go a long way towards satisfying the lack of affordable housing in Napa as well as providing a very marketable product.

Feathering – perhaps no issue is so misunderstood, misused, or pilloried as is the recommendation to eliminate feathering. Currently, the policy is to feather (I.e.,. reduce) housing density within ¼ mile of the RUL. In fact this sacred cow is more observed in the breech than in the keeping. Numerous areas adjacent to the RUL Dry Creek Road in the vicinity of Orchard Avenue, mobile home parks, etc.) have non-feathering densities with no adverse impact on or exacerbation of the agrarian-urban interface. Yet several individuals are apparently more concerned with using feathering as a red herring to frustrate any attempt to create adequate housing for Napa. We should not be misled: continuing the feathering policy is inimical to creative and effic9ient use of scarce land within the RUL.

Density – Hand-in-glove with responsible use of land is the need to increase housing densities within the RUL. To its credit, the Planning Commission and City Council have already seen this need, and have withstood localized not-in-my-backyard pressure, and approved Hawthorne Village on Solano Avenue. The draft Housing Element makes provision for creating further needed housing at the upper ranges of zoning densities.

As pointed out in the housing affordability workshops attended by the public, and as highlighted in several “best practices” symposia held with local builders and regional housing experts, the single largest hurdle to the creation of adequate housing is an identified, continuing, dedicated funding stream.

The Housing Element makes numerous recommendations in this respect. Whether additional sales tax, city-based real property transfer tax, creation of an affordable housing redevelopment agency, earmarking Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenues for housing, or any of the other recommendations, this aspect of the Housing Element is critical to its success.

But we should make no mistake about it: there is, in fact, no such thing as a free lunch. This revenue must come from somewhere.

To their credit, those who are willing to make a small sacrifice for the long-term benefit of Napa Valley have already acknowledged this fact and stepped forward, most notably with the flood control project. We should do the same with regard to housing. It’s that important.

One last item needs to be addressed – private property rights.

Time and again the shibboleth of private property rights is raised to defeat beneficial land-use programs. It is time that we acknowledge that with private property rights come private property responsibilities.

Those of us who have benefited from private property ownership have a responsibility to help those who have not. Approve the draft City of Napa Housing Element.

Keyser is a local businessman who serves on the City of Napa Housing Element Steering Committee.

Common Courtesy, Professionalism and Dual Agency

By Skip Keyser, CCIM

(Originally published in the NorBAR News)

To the age-old adage that the only sure things in life are death and taxes I feel reasonably confident that I can add a third certainty – this article is going to tick off more than a few of you.

So to save you the trouble of wading through the following several paragraphs, let me cut to the chase, as it were, and give you the bottom line: Realtors® are, if recent experience proves correct, increasingly rude, arrogant and downright unprofessional. Worse yet, the Realtors® who fit this profile are – if not brought up short – jeopardizing the profession of real estate for the rest of us.

Told you.

Now as you might ascertain by the byline, I am, by training and choice, principally a commercial real estate agent, although our firm is a full service brokerage. However, I do enough residential transactions to keep my hand in, so to speak, if for no other reason than to make sure the other agents in our small office don’t feel the managing broker is completely out of touch. And, I pay particular attention to their transactions, being somewhat paranoid and a firm believer in Murphy’s Law. You get, after all, what you inspect, not what you expect.

And, whether commercial or residential, the issues I’m about to discuss are germane to all Realtors®. While the recent experiences related below are not indicative of the vast majority of Realtors® and of necessity reflect only the geographical area in which our brokerage deals (principally Napa, Solano and Sacramento counties), they are frequent enough to warrant comment.

Herewith a few cases in point:

Case #1: Recently the assistant of a young Realtor® in our area called me to schedule an evening showing of one of our residential listings. She apologized for not being able to be more specific but inasmuch as the agent would be showing several homes to his clients, would it be possible to schedule a showing for the 5:30 to 6:30 pm time frame? I assured her it was, confirmed the date and time with the sellers and left the office reasonably confident that things were in order. The next day I was informed by the sellers that the agent had showed up, clients in tow, at about 7:00 pm and when the owners – by then in the process of preparing their evening meal – questioned this, the Realtor® abruptly and with a straight face, informed the sellers that they had it wrong, the showing was scheduled for 6:30 to 7:30 and “didn’t they want to sell their house?” Adding insult to injury, the agent, on the way out of the house remarked to his clients – in the presence of the seller’s 11-year old daughter – that every neighborhood had jerks (referring to the sellers) and the clients shouldn’t let this deter them from buying in the area.

Needless to say, fearing that perhaps I had made a mistake in the showing times, I contacted the Realtor’s® assistant, who confirmed that the showing time was indeed 5:30 to 6:30 and the Realtor “knew he was late for the showing.” (Unfortunately this was repeated a few days ago by another agent from the same brokerage who showed up on a Friday evening, client in tow, and blithely told the owners that he had – per the MLS showing instructions – left a message informing them he would be showing their home. The sellers, who had been home all day, had received no such phone call.)

Case #2: Even more recently, in representing the buyer of a multi-acre rural residence well into the over-a-million range (in Napa some consider this price range to be just slightly above a starter home) I became concerned when the time frame for the sellers to provide their contractually-obligated reports (NHD, septic, pest inspection and well potablity & productivity) arrived and no reports were forthcoming within the 7 days allowed by the contract. When I contacted the listing agent I was informed that I must have misread the contract and – being just a commercial agent – probably was ignorant and basically, ought to go stand in the corner for even daring to ask about the reports.

Now while I’ve admitted to being a commercial agent and – on occasion – even to being ignorant, I can generally parse a contract, at least with sufficient accuracy to be able to ascertain who is supposed to be doing what to and for whom. When I pointed out the specific portions of the CAR RPA contract that obligated sellers to provide such reports and suggested that perhaps the listing agent ought to avail herself of the advice of a more experienced agent in her office, I must have hit a raw nerve. In the event, I subsequently received a short memo that in fact the sellers would be providing the mandated reports, which I am happy to say they did, albeit, not for another 22 days.

Case #3: Not too long ago an agent in our office showed a residential property to his clients and they were sufficiently interested to make a full-price offer. The agent, before presenting this offer, conferred with me and stated that the owner had passed away and – inasmuch as he was considering making the offer presentation in person to the heirs – asked how he ought to handle the situation. My first reaction, knowing that his clients were first-time homebuyers and anxious to close quickly, was to question whether this was a probate sale. The agent assured me that it wasn’t and – just to be sure – I reviewed the MLS listing myself. Sure enough, it was not shown to be a probate sale. As the listing agent was a very experienced Realtor® (in fact, part owner of the brokerage) I told the agent to go ahead and present the offer.

Imagine our surprise when the listing agent, a day or two later, called to question why the offer had been made on the CAR RPA form instead of the probate sale form. Thinking that perhaps we had been careless in doing our homework, or perhaps the listing agent, realizing her mistake might have corrected the listing, I pulled up the MLS listing only to find that no change had been made. When the listing agent again called, I discussed this with her, only to be told that “they” weren’t sure whether it was a probate sale or not and the heir’s attorney desired to receive BOTH a probate and a standard (non-probate) offer, ostensibly so that the attorney could then pick and chose which form could be used.

Now I don’t hold Realtors® accountable for the machinations of attorneys, much less for the confusion of the Realtor’s® clients, but the delay in preparing another offer apparently cost our client the home, because when we presented the probate offer, we were informed the sellers had accepted another offer. Whether this “other offer” was a dual agency situation or from another brokerage, has not been determined, but one would think an experienced agent, on taking a listing where the owner had died, might think to inquire (or adequately peruse the property profile to determine) whether the estate might be probated.

Case #4: On another residential offer, wherein I represented the potential buyer on a well-over-a-million-dollar-listing, our contingent (on the sale of buyer’s residence) below-asking-price offer was met with a three-page letter from the seller (who happened to be a Realtor, although not the listing Realtor®) accusing my client (who happens to be an attorney) of fraud, inasmuch as the listing had two residences and the buyer wanted to do a mixed IRC Section 1031 transaction. Now we (I and my client) had discussed this well in advance of preparing the offer, inasmuch as it was not a run of the mill transaction. My client had conferred with his accountant as well as with a licensed exchange facilitator and had received written assurances that the proposed transaction was legitimate. [In fact the proposed transaction is identical to one the IRS uses as an example of an allowable tax deferred exchange involving the purchase of a principal residence, using the second building as either an income-producing rental or as a home office.] Once again, adding insult to injury, I was accused of being an ignorant commercial agent, unfamiliar with the nuances and protocol of residential transactions (‘how dare we make a contingent offer, this being an indication that the buyer was not sincere’). [What the seller doesn’t realize is how close he came – at the repeated insistence of our client - to being on the receiving end of an ethics complaint.]

Case #5: Another agent in our office recently presented a full-price offer on a residential property in Napa. Subsequently, the listing agent called to inform our agent that the sellers had just been testing the market and there would be no response to his offer, but that the listing price was being increased by $15,000 and if his clients were interested, they should submit a new offer. Not surprisingly, they declined and are now under contract on another home in Napa. However, in discussing this somewhat frustrating turn of events with other brokers, one managing broker commented to me that something similar was becoming a not-unheard-of-practice in the east bay area in order to encourage multiple offers which would then allow a multiple/over-listing-price/counter offer and hopefully end up with a bidding war between two or more of the potential buyers. Without commenting on the legality of this [the broker who mentioned this is widely experience, a CAR director and one on whom I frequently rely for sound professional advice], if true and if a deliberate practice, it appears to verge on being unethical and certainly doesn’t do anything to burnish the reputation of real estate agents in general and Realtors® in particular.

Some closing comments:

1. Professional standards complaints have increased in recent years, far in excess of what should be expected from the increase in NorBAR membership. Whether this trend stems from an increase in the type of events related above or from increased frustration of professional, ethical Realtors® who are no longer willing to ignore such behavior is uncertain.

2. The dramatic increase in the numbers of Realtors® (NorBAR has 487 new members in the past 18 months, about one new member each day), in conjunction with the increase in Pro Standards complaints and a decreased technical proficiency, seems to indicate that we’re not doing as good a job, either at the Association level or at the managing broker level, of training new agents.

3. As regards dual agency, it should not escape the attention of the average real estate agent that this practice has – and will continue to – come under attack from those who believe that such a situation inherently and immutably gives rise to irreconcilable conflicts of interest. Even with the increased use of buyer’s agency, and even were the trend of buyers paying their agent’s commission to become the industry standard, the conflict of interest stemming from the same brokerage representing both sides of a transaction appears to be – like an attorney simultaneously representing both the plaintiff and respondent in a civil action – an impossible situation. To the extent that we do not police ourselves, we are standing into danger and run the risk of legislation prohibiting dual agency. While this might not be life-threatening to small firms, it would appear to strike at the very heart of large brokerages.

It is time, therefore, to tighten up our internal oversight and ensure the minority of rude, arrogant and downright unprofessional Realtors® don’t tarnish the professional reputation of Realtors® everywhere.

Keyser is a former president of the North Bay Association of Realtors® and of the Napa Chapter, served for several years as a CAR director and currently serves as treasurer of NorBAR. The comments and opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily represent those of the North Bay Association of Realtors. Keyser can be contacted at skiprealty@aol.com.

The Commercial Corner

by Skip Keyser

(Originally published in The Napa Valley Register)

The first column is always the most difficult, so let’s get started.

At a recent Napa County Association of Realtors awards luncheon, the editor of one of Napa’s larger newspapers commented that there was not enough input from Realtors concerning real estate matters. This column is a direct result of that comment, along with my inability to “just say no” to these types of requests and the possible misconception that I have something to say about commercial real estate that is (a) important, (b) germane, or (c) interesting.

A few weeks later at another lunch, the same editor mentioned that I would be writing a column on commercial real estate. As it turned out, I was sitting next to a fellow [residential] Realtor, who upon hearing this, leaned over and, looking me in the eye, said sotto voce, “Make sure you distinguish between commercial and residential real estate agents.”

Which seems like a good place to start.

There is no special licensing for commercial real estate agents, or anything else to formally differentiate commercial brokers from residential brokers, other than experience and inclination. In fact, my residential brethren (when they get the opportunity and think they can get away with it) are inclined to dabble in commercial real estate – much as most commercial agents, when pressed, will do the occasional residential deal. There is nothing inherently wrong with this and a case can even be made that such “cross training” serves a useful purpose, if only to keep everyone on their toes. Indeed, the elements of a good commercial agent are the same as for a good residential agent; knowledge, experience (there’s that word again), attention to detail, honesty, fair dealing, allegiance to ones principal (client) and an abiding appreciation for the intricacies of Murphy’s Law. So one could say (and I will say) that there isn’t any difference between commercial and residential agents, other than inclination and experience. My apologies to the fellow [residential] Realtor.

Having put that issue to bed, comes now the difficult part; what is this column about? As you might have guessed from the title, it’s about commercial real estate matters, both from the prospective of one who deals on a day-to-day basis with these things and (hopefully) from the prospective of what you the reader find interesting or want to know about such things. This column will appear monthly and the plan is to discuss the following subjects:

· Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Leases But Were Afraid to Ask

· How to Put a Value on That Building.

· How to Put a Value on That Business.

· Selling That Building or Business Opportunity

· Buying That Building or Business Opportunity

· 13 Key Things to Understand About Property Management

· The Simple Approach to Calculating How Much You’re Going to Make/(Lose) on That Commercial Real Estate Investment

The astute reader will notice that there are only seven (7) topics listed here. Not to worry; assuming we garner more than two readers, the remainder (or intervening) columns will be fleshed out with questions from and topics suggested by you. More about that at the end of this column.

A word of caution from the legal department. I am not an attorney. I am not an accountant. I am not an appraiser. Therefore, this column does not provide legal guidance, tax advice, or attempt to establish the value of a specific piece of property. I shall, accordingly, limit my discussion to the subject of commercial real estate. I shall also attempt to refrain from saying anything actionable or libelous, from impugning any reputations or from engaging in rumor or innuendo. Despite these almost insurmountable restrictions, I will attempt to keep this column light, interesting, informative and readable.

Now for some background. As a licensed real estate broker, I come to real estate by an indirect route. Most of my professional life has been spent as an engineer. In fact, I am a registered engineer in California and Idaho, which means that (unlike some of my colleagues) I have the training and am licensed by at least two states to dress the way I do. Beyond that, there isn’t much that engineering has to do with real estate, since as a profession, engineers haven’t made as many inroads into other fields as have, for example, lawyers. More about that later.

As to commercial real estate, I have been dealing full time in commercial real estate since the early 1990’s, first at another small Napa Valley brokerage and, since late 1997, at my own brokerage. (More about that later!)

Enough background; now onto something substantive. Since I will be discussing leases in the next column, let’s review some basic lease types. Generally speaking (this is a phrase that keeps me out of trouble if I overlook something important) leases fall into one of the following types:

· NET LEASE (aka N, NN, NNN or Single, Double or Triple Net) – This is a lease in which the lessee (buzz word for tenant) pays (depending on the number of “nets”) the property taxes, fire and casualty insurance premiums, and maintenance costs, in addition to the building rent. The effective rent is the total of both amounts.

· GROSS LEASE – A lease in which the lessee (there’s that word again) pays a set amount per square foot or per month (or per fortnight if desired). The lessor (landlord) pays for most operating costs (property taxes, fire and casualty insurance premiums, maintenance costs, etc.), but usually not for utilities, janitorial services, liability insurance, and the like.

· INDUSTRIAL GROSS (IG) LEASE – A cross between a Gross Lease and a Net Lease in that one or more common area maintenance (CAM), insurance, or property tax expenses are passed through to the lessee. An Industrial Gross lease differs from a Single/Double/Triple Net lease in that only the increase (over a base year amount) for the above charges are passed on to the lessee.

· FULL-SERVICE LEASE – A lease in which the lessor pays for all operating costs, including property taxes, fire and casualty insurance premiums, maintenance costs, utilities, janitorial services, etc.

· PERCENTAGE LEASE – A lease, generally on a retail business property, for which the rent is based on a percentage of the gross or net sales. There is usually a minimum of “base” rent, to protect the lessor in the event of poor sales.

· GROUND LEASE – A lease of vacant land or of land exclusive of any improvements.

Now before everyone rushes out to review their lease and attempts to renegotiate for a more favorable lease type, bear in mind two things: first, wait until we discuss leases in more detail; and second, remember TANSTAAFL. For those of you not yet familiar with TANSTAAFL, it stands for There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. Believe it. Whether you have a gross, industrial gross, triple-net or whatever lease, if you’ve negotiated a fair and balanced lease agreement (or availed yourself of a knowledgeable, experienced, diligent commercial real estate agent!) then you’re probably paying, bottom line, what the market will bear for the property in question. And besides, there are more important elements to be concerned with in a lease. Which is a good segue into…

Next month, the Commissioner of Real Estate willing, I will explore “Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Leases But Were Afraid to Ask.” In the meantime, if you have any questions or comments, you can communicate them (anonymously if you desire) in the following manner (listed in inverse order of preference):

· E-mail me at SkipRealty@AOL.COM

· Fax me at 707-251-0224

· Snail-mail me at Skip Keyser Realty, 1434 Third Street, Suite E, Napa CA 94559

· Phone me at 707-251-0225 or 257-0392.

Until next month, you’re out of the corner.

The Commercial Corner

by Skip Keyser

(Originally published in The Napa Valley Register)

Last month we briefly reviewed the different types of leases in preparation for this month’s column. To recap, leases generally fall into one of the following categories:

· Net Leases

· Gross Leases

· Industrial Gross (IG) Leases

· Full-Service Leases

· Percentage Leases

· Ground Leases.

With that background, this month we will discuss “Everything you ever wanted to know about leases but were afraid to ask.” Before we begin, perhaps we ought to point out what the purpose of the Commercial Corner is. Succinctly put, the purpose of this column is to provide a primer for those of you who may be contemplating entering into the realm of commercial real estate, either as a consumer or as an agent. Hopefully, we will also provide some insight for those of you who are just plain curious. And regretfully, we will inevitably provide some “lessons learned” for those of you who have already entered into a commercial real estate transaction (be it a lease, purchase of income property or business opportunity, or property management) and who (gasp!) may not have fully understood what you were getting into. We, of course, have never done this (which is why we call them “lessons learned”). Of necessity, therefore, there will be more than a modicum of technical information, dry as it may be, in order that this column contain more than just fluff. Bear with us.

Before we get started however, I’d like to initiate a monthly sidebar which will provide one real estate broker’s snapshot of the commercial market. The data provided herein is garnered from recent commercial transactions we’ve been involved with and no representation is made or intended as to how representative this data is of the entire Napa Valley commercial real estate market or of any one transaction. Herewith then, the inaugural Napa Valley Commercial Snapshot (rates are given in $/square foot, abbreviated as sf):

Retail lease rates: $0.91/sf to $1.35/sf

Industrial-warehouse lease rates: $0.55/sf to $0.60/sf

Professional office lease rates: $1.32/sf to $1.40/sf

Medical-dental lease rates: No transactions this period.

Now, on to our discussion of commercial leases. Let’s start with a short quiz. Question - the average commercial lease is how long?

a. 6 legal-size pages

b. 15 legal-size pages

c. 26 legal-size pages

d. 35 legal-size pages.

If you selected (guessed?) answer “c” you were right. You were also correct if you selected answer “a”, or for that matter answer “b.” And (if you haven’t caught on yet) answer “d” is also acceptable. Why is that?

Well, as we sit here trying to beat the deadline for this column, we have before us four typical commercial leases, recently executed right here in Napa County, which range in size from six to 35 legal-size pages. What’s the difference? In part, the answer lies in the risks (real or perceived) that the lessor (landlord) and lessee (tenant) are trying to avoid. In part, the answer lies in the sophistication of the parties involved (and more sophisticated does not necessarily mean longer), and the complexities of the property being leased. Each of the leases mentioned above is (in our opinion) adequate to its purpose, which is to spell out the terms and conditions under which one party undertakes to hire (rent) real property from another party for consideration (something of value). In other words, the purpose of a lease is to form a contract, the usual elements of which are:

(add)

This being the case, leases can generally be characterized as containing the following significant parts, intended to address one or more of the elements mentioned above (the reader should bear in mind that in constructing a particular lease, everything is negotiable):

· Parties – An identification of the parties to the agreement (that is, who is doing what to whom?)

· Premises – A description of the property being leased (rented), including the use to which it will be put.

· Term – A statement of how long the lease will be in effect.

· Rent – The amount and type of consideration the lessee will pay to the lessor for use of the premises (we include under this section all the various ancillary items such as when the rent is due, to whom it is payable, when and by how much it will increase over the lease term, and any provisions for security deposit, late fees, interest on overdue amounts and returned check charges).

· Utilities – A stipulation as to who pays for utilities and, if not separately metered, how they will be calculated and billed.

· Maintenance – A recitation of which party is responsible for maintaining what portion of the premises. [A side comment is in order here: Maintenance is often one of the most misunderstood portions of a commercial lease, which – unlike residential leases – tends to be more burdensome on the lessee/tenant in this area. In fact, usually the lessee, insofar as maintenance of the interior of the premises is concerned, winds up maintaining everything; lights, plumbing, you name it. Frequently, the commercial lessee also ends up maintaining exterior items, such a plate glass, heating ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) systems, and the like. But also remember what we pointed out above; everything is negotiable. (Just make sure you do your negotiating before you sign the lease!)]

· Alterations – Which spells out when and under what conditions the lessee may alter the premises. Usually, the sophisticated lessor will ensure the lessee obtains written permission before altering the premises and provides adequate advance notice of any work or delivery of materials, in order that the owner of the property has sufficient time to protect against mechanics liens.

· Insurance – A statement of what type and how much insurance the lessee must carry, as well as whether and how the lessor is to be added to the lessee’s policy.

· Notices – To whom and at what location important communications about the lease are to be delivered.

There usually are several other provisions in the standard lease which provide for alternatives such as:

· Option to Renew – A spelling out, in advance, of the terms and conditions under which the lease can be automatically renewed by the lessee

· Common Area Operating Costs – Particularly in net (N, NN or NNN) and industrial gross (IG) leases, where provision is made for passing on one or more of the following costs: insurance, real property taxes, and common area maintenance (CAM) charges.

· Holding Over – What happens should the lessee/tenant remain in possession of the premises (with the lessor’s consent) after the term of the lease expires. In almost all cases a fixed-term lease (to use a non-technical term) reverts to a month-to-month tenancy following expiration of the lease term. Under these conditions, the terms and conditions of the lease can be modified by the lessor, and the tenancy can be terminated by the lessee, with 30-days written notice. The wise lessor will therefore provide for an automatic increase in the rent during the holding over period of sufficient magnitude to bring the lessee to the table to negotiate a lease renewal in a timely manner; the wise lessee will ensure that a reasonable cap is put on the holdover rent to prevent being taken advantage of by the lessor.

· Assignment and Subletting & Entry and Inspection – Additional paragraphs which spell out the lessee’s right to obtain a surrogate tenant and the conditions under which the lessor may enter the premises.

There are, of course, many other provisions in a lease, but these are the salient ones that most lessees will be cognizant of when they negotiate (or review) their lease. Hopefully this review will take place early enough in the negotiation period to allow an equitable agreement to be reached between the lessor/landlord and the lessee/tenant.

If you’ve made it this far, you now have a synopsis of the provisions of the “typical” commercial lease, along with some ideas on what to expect when negotiating the lease. You should also have a better understanding of the purpose of a commercial lease, whether of the six or 35-page variety. If you are a neophyte lessee, you should be better prepared to deal with that ogre-landlord-owner who is bound and determined to frustrate your attempts to run your business as you see fit. If you are a landlord, perhaps you have discovered some aspects of commercial real estate leases you overlooked when negotiating with that last tenant who is bent on wreaking wanton waste and destruction on your immaculate commercial building.

If you’re someone considering a career as a commercial real estate agent, who bears the responsibility for fair and honest dealing while representing the interests of the client, you should have a better understanding of the tips, traps and techniques of the typical commercial lease.

Next month; How to put a value on that commercial building. Until then, you’re out of the corner.

Skip Keyser is the owner-broker of a real estate firm in Napa Valley. He can be contacted at 707-251-0225, 251-0224(Fax), or at SkipRealty@aol.com.

The Commercial Corner

by Skip Keyser

(Originally published in The Napa Valley Register)

Lease Negotiating Tips

During the past two columns, I’ve introduced the types of commercial leases (Net, Gross, Industrial Gross, Full-Service, Percentage and Ground) as well as the main elements of a lease (the Parties, Premises, Term, Rent, Utilities, Maintenance, Alterations, Insurance, Notices, Option to Renew, Common Area Operating Costs, Holding Over, Assignment and Subletting & Entry and Inspection).

This month I’d like to discuss some negotiating techniques that you can use to arrive at a successful commercial (or any other type) lease.

In starting out to negotiate a lease, keep in mind that, despite all the various types of leases and all the various lease elements, clauses, paragraphs and addenda, in lease negotiations there are only three (3) things that ultimately matter: the lease rate (rent), the term (length of the lease) and the tenant improvements (TI’s).

For example, if you, as prospective tenant, come forward and offer a 5-year lease at close to market rate with few if any owner-paid tenant improvements, you stand a much better chance of success than someone who offers a month-to-month tenancy at a rock-bottom rent and requests that the owner rebuild the building to suit your needs. This should appear obvious, but my experience shows otherwise.

Ergo, Lease Negotiating Tip #1: Concentrate on the basics: rent, lease length and TI’s. [All else is mere window dressing.]

With the basics firmly in hand, the next thing a successful tenant or landlord needs is to understand the goals of both parties. In a lease negotiation, these goals are pretty straightforward and can be summarized as follows:

Lessee/Tenant’s Goal: To get the lowest rent for the longest term with the

greatest benefits.

Lessor/Landlord’s Goal: To get the highest return on his or her investment.

This leads to Lease Negotiating Tip #2: Play to your opponent’s weaknesses. [I hesitate to characterize lease negotiations as a contest, but that’s pretty much what they end up being, no matter how subtle.]

Speaking of being subtle, let me reinforce the foregoing for those of you who weren’t paying attention. Prospective tenants should show the landlord how their proposed lease maximizes the landlord’s cash flow; landlords should show their prospective tenants how, despite all the onerous trimmings of the lease (and most leases, by their very nature, are cast in favor of the landlord), the proposed lease provides the tenant with the lowest effective rent for the longest time with the most benefits.

Now that you’ve got the basics in mind and have sight of your (and your opponent’s) negotiating goal, do your homework. For lease negotiations, this should include determining the:

· Availability of comparable properties

· Market rate rents

· Cost of proposed tenant improvements

· Suitability of the property for the proposed use

· Financial strength of the prospective tenant.

Thus, Lease Negotiating Tip #3: Knowledge is power [or as Damon Runyon put it, “The race may not always be to the swift nor the battle to the strong, but that’s the way to bet ‘em.”]

Nowhere is it more important to do your homework than in negotiating a real estate contract such as a lease. If, as is currently the case in Napa, you are looking for 1000 to 2000 square feet (sf) of solid commercial warehouse space outside the flood zone with insulated 18-foot clear height ceilings and a retail front with good office build out, don’t expect to pay $0.35/sf per month and don’t expect to have the property remain available for very long. If you’re vacillating over $0.05/sf in monthly rents and you really want the property, you better vacillate pretty quickly and come back to the bargaining table with a reasonable offer. Otherwise, someone else will be operating their business from your location.

With this in mind, establish your bottom line. As a tenant, how much can you afford to spend; as a landlord, how little can you afford to receive. At this point a comment is warranted. It never ceases to amaze me when representing a client during lease negotiations, how little attention is paid to the bottom line. Time and again, I’ve encountered landlords who, in a soft market, refuse to concede one or two months rent (either as a free-rent incentive or in the form of owner-paid tenant improvements) to an otherwise qualified tenant, only to see the property remain vacant for several more months. Someone isn’t watching the bottom line. [Now, in deference to landlords who are reluctant to take rents at substantially below market rate, there is the aspect of undermining the landlord’s position during lease renewal negotiation with other tenants in the complex. While one would like to think that tenants don’t share rent information with their neighbors, they do and the landlord needs to keep this in mind.]

And so, Lease Negotiating Tip #4: Pay attention to the cash flow.

All of which brings us to the next aspect of successful lease negotiating: be professional. There is no question that it’s difficult to maintain your equanimity (cool) when you’ve worked so hard to locate a favorable site for your business, only to be frustrated by an intransigent landlord during lease negotiations. On the other hand (as the well-known line goes) “This is not personal, it’s just business.” So concentrate on the basics, be realistic in your demands, and don’t get emotional (at least not publicly). Or, to put it as Lease Negotiating Tip #5: Leave your ego at home.

Finally, there is one last aspect of successful lease negotiating that needs to be discussed: negotiate, don’t compromise. One recent example of this philosophy ought to suffice here. During a recent negotiation in which I represented the owner/landlord, the other party, after entering into a written agreement, found that they had underestimated one of their costs. Consequently, their agent sought to reopen negotiations and have the owner absorb the cost. We thought the agreement, in its original configuration, was fair and equitable and rejected this overture. When the request was turned down, the agent’s reply was “Don’t you want to see this deal go through?” Well, the answer is yes, but not at the expense of my client’s position. The agent’s next comment was “Why don’t we just split the cost 50-50?”

Unfortunately, this is all too often the response of a weak agent who, having overlooked some aspect during the bargaining phase, or being saddled with an unreasonable client, lacks the backbone to admit the mistake or counsel his or her client accordingly. If the answer to every negotiating point were to “split the difference” we could replace a lot of agents with a four-function calculator and save everyone a lot of expense. To my mind, that’s not the purpose of an agent and it certainly doesn’t represent a very high level of negotiating. Additionally, I see no value added. Like it or not, as real estate agents, we’re not leasing, buying or selling property: we’re providing service. And good service means knowledge backed up by attention to detail. This is too often overlooked by agents, who when pressed, resort to some of the lame gambits characterized by the “let’s split the difference” approach outlined above. And so, Lease Negotiating Tip #6: negotiate, don’t compromise.

I think these negotiating tips are so important (and keeping them in mind makes my job so much easier if I’m representing you) that I’ll summarize them here so that you can clip them out and keep them handy for your next lease negotiation:

Lease Negotiating Tips

#1: Concentrate on the basics: rent, lease length and TI’s.

#2: Understand the goals: play to your opponent’s weaknesses.

#3: Do your homework: knowledge is power.

#4: Establish your bottom line: pay attention to the cash flow.

#5: Be professional: leave your ego at home.

#6: Negotiate, don’t compromise.

Next month I’ll shift gears and discuss - How to put a value on that commercial building. Until then, you’re out of the corner.

Skip Keyser is the owner-broker of a real estate firm in Napa Valley. He can be contacted at 707-251-0225, 251-0224(Fax), or at SkipRealty@aol.com.

Sidebar:

Napa Valley Commercial Real Estate Snapshot - June 1998

Type of Lease Lease Rate per Square Foot

Retail: $1.33/sf

Industrial-warehouse: $0.56/sf

Professional office: $0.85/sf to $1.37/sf

Medical-dental: No transactions this period.

Type of Sale Sales Price per Square Foot

Multi-unit residential income: $55.18/sf

This is one broker’s snapshot of the commercial real estate market in Napa County. Although the data provided herein is garnered from recent commercial transactions I've been involved with, no representation is made or intended as to how reflective this data is of the entire Napa Valley commercial real estate market or of any one transaction.

"The Chairman's Corner" columns from the NorBAR News (North Bay Association of Relators, covering Napa, Sonoma, Lake and Mendocino Counties)

The Chairman’s Corner… (January 2002)

Skip Keyser, CCIM

2002 NorBAR Chairman

Professional Realtor

By the time most of you read this, the North Bay Association of Realtors® 2002 board of directors will have been installed. The board is a mix of previous board members and new directors and with the help of the very capable NorBAR staff, will endeavor to make the professional life of the average NorBAR Realtor® easier. Put another way, board decisions ought to be governed by the question of whether or not a particular action or policy assists our member Realtors® in being successful in their chosen profession.

Which is a reasonable segue into this month’s topic: professionals. Often the term professional is taken to refer to doctors, attorneys, engineers, and others whose background encompasses specialized training, licensing, continuing education and periodic re-certification. But in a broader sense, a professional is better characterized as someone with specialized skills, whose attention is focused on a specific field and whose actions are constrained by law, a rigorous and demanding code of conduct, and peer review.

I submit that a Realtor®, as distinguished from a real estate licensee, meets all of the above tests and qualifies as a professional. It should come as no surprise to anyone reading this that it’s not very difficult to get a real estate license, salesperson or broker’s, in the State of California. In fact there are so many licensees that it’s reported the CHP once considered accepting a real estate license as an alternate form of identification. (Apparently this did not come about because of the concern about matching the photos many real estate agents use with the actual person.)

Regardless, the point is that the designation Realtor® shouldn’t be taken lightly. By becoming a Realtor®, by subscribing to the Code of Ethics, and by agreeing to submit to peer (professional standards) review, every Realtor® is entitled to the designation of Professional Real Estate Agent. And we ought to encourage others in the real estate business to become a Realtor®.

The Chairman’s Corner… (February 2002)

Skip Keyser, CCIM

2002 NorBAR Chairman

C.A.R. Directors

By the time most of you read this, the first California Association of Realtors ® 2002 business meeting, held in Hollywood, will be history. If you’re not aware of it, NorBAR is allowed 14 C.A.R. directors, based on the size of our Realtor® membership. These directors are appointed annually by the NorBAR Board of Directors.

There are three C.A.R. statewide meetings each year. This year’s meetings, besides Hollywood, are in Sacramento (June 5-8) and Long Beach (October 9-12).

What takes place at a C.A.R. business meeting? Basically these are three and one-half day events at which the business of the California Association of Realtors® is conducted. The agenda consists of committee meetings, seminars and discussion forums. Additionally there are general meetings at the start and finish of each session. The Sacramento meeting also includes Legislative Day.

To get a better idea of the types of committee meeting, seminars and forums we’re talking about, you can log onto the C.A.R. web site at www.C.A.R..org and click on Meetings/Industry Events.

Obviously, with the number of committees within C.A.R. and the limited number of directors from NorBAR, we don’t have representation on all committees. However, we usually try and sit in on all committee meetings, forums (such as the DRE forum – always interesting) and seminars that are germane to real estate issues in the four-county NorBAR area. Reports of these meetings, taken by each NorBAR C.A.R. director attending, are available on the NorBAR web site at www.realtour.com.

One additional aspect of these statewide business meetings is the regional caucus. NorBAR is a member of Region IV (the state is broken into 31 regions) which includes Realtor® associations from Napa, Sonoma, Solano, Marin, Lake and Mendocino counties. These regional caucuses provide an opportunity for directors, association executive officers and GADs (governmental affairs directors) to discuss and take action on the results of each day’s business.

Now for the punch line. NorBAR presently has two openings for calendar year 2002 C.A.R. directors. While it’s too late to go to Hollywood, there is still time for Sacramento and Long Beach. If you’re interested, let me, one of the NorBAR directors, or NorBAR staff know. NorBAR will reimburse most (if not all) of your meeting and travel expenses, depending on your life style.

What are the qualifications to serve as a C.A.R. director? Pretty simple, really; be a Realtor® member of NorBAR and have an interest in expanding your professional horizons. Call now!

The Chairman’s Corner… (March 2002)

Skip Keyser, CCIM

2002 NorBAR Chairman

Affordable Housing – Part 1

This is the first of a two-part commentary on affordable housing that stems from having had the opportunity to serve for 15 months on the City of Napa Housing Element Steering Committee. During this period, 15 individuals from all aspects of the community (including Realtors®) put together a Housing Element which was recently approved by the State of California.

This month’s commentary will examine the basics of housing elements and affordable housing. Next month’s segment will expand on this and discuss data recently developed for Napa which puts the housing affordability crisis facing California in general, and the north bay in particular, in perspective.

To start off with, a Housing Element is one of several “elements” of a city or county’s General Plan. In the City of Napa there are nine elements to the general plan. These are Housing, Land Use, Transportation, Natural Resources, Health & Safety, Community Services, Parks & Recreation, Historic Resources, and Economic. The first five are mandated and the last four are optional. Other jurisdictions such as Napa County, Santa Rosa, or Ukiah, may have a different mix of elements.

The California Government Code (Chapter 5, Division 1, Title 1, Section 6500 et seq.) lays out the requirements for a Housing Element. Generally speaking, a certified (i.e., compliant) Housing Element consists of “identification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs and a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, financial resources and scheduled programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing.” Specifically, the Housing Element must identify adequate sites for rental housing, factory-built housing, and mobile homes. It must also make adequate provision for the existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community. This last requirement probably accounts for most of the misunderstanding and the majority of public concern with Housing Elements.

Before we go too much further, we need to define some terms, not the least of which are the “economic segments” of the community. Frequently these terms are loosely used, but they do have formal definitions. The definitions used in this article come from Federal and state housing guidelines:

Affordable Housing = housing that requires less than 30% of an individual’s (or household’s) total income.

When discussing affordable housing, their are four recognized categories or economic segments of the community:

Very Low Income = households that earn no more than 50% of the Median Income for the area. Median Income depends on family size and is set by the U.S. Government Bureau of Labor Statistics and is derived from census data. In Napa, for example, the Median Income for a family of 4 is $55,700 per year. This is the income at which half of the 4-person households in Napa (actually Napa-Solano, which is the demographic unit used in this case) earn more and half earn less. It is not the average (or “mean”) income for all 4-person households in Napa-Solano.

Low Income = households that earn more than 50% but less than 80% of the Median Income.

Moderate Income = households that earn more than 80% but less than 120% of the Median Income.

Above Moderate Income = households that earn more than 120% of the Median Income.

Now, we’ll get into this more in the second installment of this commentary, but for now let’s take a minute and see what all this means for someone who lives in Napa-Solano. For this area, the Median Income is:

Household Size Median Income/Year

1 $39,000

2 $44.600

3 $50,100

4 $55,700

Recall that we said “Affordable Housing” means a household spends no more than 30% of its income on housing. This means affordable housing for a median income family should not cost more than:

Household Size Affordable Housing Cost/Month

1 $ 975

2 $1,125

3 $1,253

4 $1,392

Begin to get the picture?

Let’s look at this another way. Based on income level, what constitutes affordable housing?

Annual Income Affordable Housing Cost/Month

$20,000 $ 500

$40,000 $ 1,000

$60,000 $ 1,500

$80,000 $ 2,000

$100,000 $ 2,500

So, if your household makes $60,000 per year, then your total monthly housing costs, including debt service, utilities, taxes, insurance, etc. should not exceed $1,500 per month in order for your housing to qualify as affordable. If you spend more than $1,500 per month (i.e., more than 30% of your total income) on these items, your housing is not affordable.

Let’s get back to the basics of a Housing Element. Where do the projected housing needs come from? As everyone has probably heard, housing “numbers” (the quantity of very low, low, moderate and above moderate housing needed by a city or county) come from – at least for the north bay area - ABAG (the Association of Bay Area Governments). ABAG is what is referred to as a “regional council of governments” and is empowered by law to “…determine the existing and projected housing need for its region…” But these housing needs projections are not picked out of thin air. They are developed by the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) in conjunction with local jurisdictions and regional councils, and are based on economic, housing and demographic forecasts for the state.

There are about a dozen of these regional councils of governments throughout the state, and every 5 years (on a rotating basis) the jurisdictions within each region must update their housing element, that is, review the allocation of housing needs, modify their housing element, and submit it to the jurisdiction’s planning commission and city council/county board of supervisors, and then to HCD for approval. For jurisdictions within ABAG, the current cycle was to have been completed by December 31, 2001.

To recap, HCD develops and assigns housing needs numbers to each regional council of governments, which in turn apportion these identified housing needs among the jurisdictions making up the region. In a perfect world, each jurisdiction would then revise the housing element of its general plan to address (“come into compliance with”) these housing needs. A city or county which does not prepare a satisfactory housing element (a housing element that does not meet the requirements of the California Government Code and therefore fails certification by HCD) is said to be “out of compliance” or lacking a certified housing element.

Presently, an out-of-compliance jurisdiction does not suffer significant monetary or funding penalties, but this may change based on legislation proposed last year. More on this next month.

Also next month, why a Deputy City Attorney and 4-Year Certified School Teacher, with a combined income of $118,872 a year, can’t afford the average 3 Bedroom/2 Bathroom home that sold in Napa during the first half of 2001.

The Chairman’s Corner… (April 2002)

Skip Keyser, CCIM

2002 NorBAR Chairman

Affordable Housing – Part 2

Last month I discussed the basics of general plan housing elements (required of each city and county) as well as some general nomenclature having to do with Very Low, Low, Moderate and Above Moderate Income levels. Last month’s article also discussed how housing “numbers” (the required amount of housing units) are developed and the role regional councils of governments (ABAG, or Association of Bay Area Governments in the case of most areas of NorBAR) play in assigning these numbers to each city or county.

This month’s article will complete this two-part series by discussing specifics of the housing affordability crisis facing California and the North Bay and briefly outline some pending legislation designed to bring non-compliant cities and counties (those who don’t have certified or approved housing elements) into compliance with California law.

Let’s start with a general characterization of the housing situation in the North Bay:

· Without a viable inventory of affordable housing, most cities in the North Bay area will continue to be highly desirable places to live but with many more job opportunities than housing opportunities.

· Job development throughout the North Bay increases demand for housing. For example, Napa City (with which I am most familiar) currently requires more than 2,600 units of new housing over the next 5 years (2002 through 2006).

· Creation of housing which is affordable to each city’s local workforce is important now and will remain so in the future.

· Housing costs are high in the North Bay area compared to salaries for many (some would say “most”) local jobs.

· Market rate housing is not generally affordable to very low and low-income households, that is, households making up to about $30,000 to $40,000 per year for a family of four.

· Except for grant-subsidized housing (such as that built by Napa Valley Community Housing throughout Napa County), the private sector has primarily been building single family homes, and the price of these new homes has risen to the point that they are affordably only to above-moderate income households (those making over 120% of the median income).

· There is an extremely low vacancy rate for market-rate rental housing in the North Bay. It is generally accepted that this lack of rental inventory (not the lack of rent control) is what causes high rents. In a recent survey, the rental rate in many North Bay communities was less than 1%, in some cases well less than 1%.

How desperate is the housing situation in the North Bay? Using statistics derived from homes sold in Napa during a recent 6-month period, the following examples, based on the recommended limit of spending no more than 1/3 of a family’s total income on housing costs, bring the problem into perspective:

· A bus driver making $36,000/year and a retail clerk making $19,500/year with 2 children would only need an extra $21,192 per year to afford the average 2BD/1BA home that sold in Napa City during the past 6 months.

· The same couple would need to earn an extra $60,616 to afford the average 3BD/2BA home that sold in Napa City during the past 6 months.

· A bank teller making $21,000 a year and a secretary working for the City of Napa making $41,000/year with 2 children would only need an additional $15,326 to afford a 2BD/1BA home, or an additional $54,750 of income per year for a 3BD/2BA home.

· A City of Napa police officer making $60,000/year and a City of Napa Accounting Clerk (Level II) making $36,000 a year with 2 children could only afford the average 3BD/2BA home if they had an additional $20,000/year in income.

· A Deputy City Attorney making $80,600/year and a school teacher making $38,272/year with 2 children, that is, a family of 4 with an annual income of over $118,000/year, could just barely afford the average 3BD/2BA home selling in Napa City during the past 6 months.

That's the type of housing affordability crisis we're faced with in the North Bay area for a family wishing to purchase a home.

When it comes to renting a home or apartment, the situation is equally (if not more) grim. In a recent survey conducted by the Rental Housing and Apartment Association of Contra Costa, Solano and Napa Counties (March 2001), the average rental prices in Napa were:

1BD/1BA unit $850/month

2BD/1BA unit $990/month

3BD/2BA unit insufficient data

For a 2BD/1BA apartment with utility costs of $75/month, this average housing cost rises to $1065/month. Using the 1/3 total income guideline, this means a family of 4 wishing to rent a 2BA/1BA home in Napa, should be earning at least $38,340/year. This equals (for 2 full time wage earners) $9.25/hr each, or about the average wage for a full-time bank teller or retail clerk. By comparison, the Minimum Wage is only $6.75/hour. Anyone making less than that either has to have a second (or third) job, live in substandard housing or (as is too often the case) live two families to a home.

Creation of housing which is affordable to our local workforce is important. Do not, for a moment, assume "workforce" means unskilled, entry-level, or blue-collar employees. As the examples cited above illustrate, housing affordability transcends very low, low and moderate-income levels. This means the housing affordability crisis in the North Bay area applies to people employed as Winery Retail/Bottling Workers at $8.50/hr, Retail Clerks at $9.35/hr, full-time Bank Tellers at $10.00/hr, City Employees (such as an Accounting Clerk II) at $17.31/hr, fully-certified School Teachers (with 4 years experience) at $18.40/hr, Carpenters at $27.50/hr, and Police Officers at $28.90/hr.

To the extent that individuals such as these can not afford to live in our communities, then we should expect a less viable, less resilient, and less dynamic community. As a result, the citizens of each community may well have to pay more for teachers who have to commute from less expensive areas, will have fewer resident contractors and construction trade people to assist the community in recovering from natural disasters (such as earthquakes); and will have fewer of their sons and daughters able to live in the community in which they were raised.

Interestingly enough, when one looks at the demographics of the State of California as a whole, and the United States in general, the south-western shift in population and growth in California’s population underlines the fact that the housing affordability situation in California will continue to be one of the state’s most significant issues. Consider for example that:

· California currently has a population in excess of 33,000,000.

· Based on the 2000 Census, 1 in 8 people living in the US, lives in California.

· We can expect to see an increase in California’s population of an additional 11,000,000 over the next 18 years, meaning that in 2020, approximately 1 in 7 people living in the US will live in California.

· State-wide, according to the state Department of Housing and Community Development – HCD, approximately 220,000 new housing units are needed each year between now and 2020, just to keep up with population growth.

· In 2000, the last year for which accurate data is available, only 150,000 new housing units were built in California, leaving a deficit for just one year of 70,000 housing units (in a time of strong economic growth).

· For those who think the solution is to keep people from coming to California, more than half of the 11,000,000 population growth cited above will come from growth in the existing population (native birth) and not by migration or immigration. Specifically, there is a fairly consistent growth of about 600,000 per year in California’s population, as follows:

Birth Rate = 525,000/year

Foreign Immigration = 300,000/year (about 1/3 of all the US)

Death = (225,000)/year

Net = 600,000/year

· In the Bay Area, approximately 1,000,000 new jobs will be developed by 2020.

· These 1,000,000 new jobs will bring with them about 1,500,000 people.

· At 2.7 individuals per housing unit, this will result in the need for an extra 556,000 housing units in the Bay Area by 2020, or about 31,000 units per year.

[Note: these figures were obtained from the California State web site – www.ca.gov; the US Census Bureau’s web site – www.census.gov; and from presentations by or discussions with Mark Stivers, California Senate Committee of Housing & Community Development; The CAA - California Apartment Association “Making California Housing Affordable” handout; the June 2001 C.A.R. Affordable Housing Forum in Sacramento; and the September 2001 Napa County Economic Summit.]

Not surprisingly then, there is substantial interest in the California legislature about housing affordability. And there is, to be blunt about it, substantial frustration with those cities and counties who are unable or unwilling to develop housing elements that are in compliance with state law. It should therefore come as no surprise that several pieces of legislation have been introduced that deal with housing affordability:

· AB 999 (Keeley) Expanding the California Housing Loan Insurance Fund (CaHLIF)

· SB 193 (Burton) Creating a State Level Voluntary Security Deposit Guarantee Program

· SB 1227 (Burton) Statewide Housing Bond of 2002 ($2,000,000,000)

And last, but not least:

· SB 910 (Dunn) Revising the Fair Share Housing Allocation Process

It is this last bill which proposes to create economic penalties for local governments (cities and counties) that fail to comply with the state fair share housing allocation process, as well as create legal consequences of housing element noncompliance. In its present configuration, the State of California Controller could withhold an increasing percentage of street and highway repair and maintenance funds from a local government whose housing element is out of compliance two cycles in a row.

This then, in a nutshell, is the affordable housing situation in California and the North Bay area as it stands today. It is one of, if not the most, significant problems facing cities, counties, and Realtors® and will likely remain so for the next several years. As professional real estate practitioners, we should be conversant with, and locally involved in, solving this problem.

The Chairman’s Corner… (May 2002)

Skip Keyser, CCIM

2002 NorBAR Chairman

SUPRA Upgrade

Before I start this month’s column, I have two administrative items:

1. NorBAR EVP: As many of your are aware, our Executive Vice President, Linda Bianchi, has tendered her resignation for medical reasons. The Board of Directors, ably assisted by Linda and by Pat Miller, past NorBAR Chairperson, reviewed 15 resumes and interviewed 4 candidates. It is my pleasure to announce that Ms. Yvonne Cornelius, who has managed the NorBAR store for the past several years, has been selected as NorBAR’s new Executive Vice President. We expect the turnover to be completed by May 1, 2002. I’m sure everyone will join me in thanking Linda for her many years of excellent service to NorBAR and the Realtor® community and in welcoming Yvonne as the new Executive Vice President. As a side note, Linda has offered to remain as the Professional Standards Administrator for NorBAR and the Board of Directors is negotiating to put this in place.

2. CAR LEGISLATIVE DAY: By the time you read this, it will almost be June and time for the California Association of Realtors® Legislative Day 2002. This year, Leg Day is Wednesday June 5, 2002 at (where else?) Sacramento. This will follow the Women’s Council of Realtors business meeting and kick off CAR’s mid-year business meeting, from June 5^th through Saturday June 8^th. Please plan to attend Legislative Day. Kathy Hayes, NorBAR’s very capable Governmental Affairs Director will provide additional information to each chapter in the near future.

Now on to the main topic of this month’s column…SUPRA.

The SUPRA Products company, a division of GE Interlogix located in Salem, Oregon, recently announced that they would no longer support the Advantage Express II (AEII) key pads and lock boxes. The AEII system includes the SUPRA SuperKey key pad and SUPRA lock boxes (“keyboxes”) currently in use in Napa and Sonoma counties.

As anyone who uses lock boxes is aware, update of key codes and lock box access is controlled by KIM (formerly “LENI”), our friendly computer which is maintained by BAREIS (Bay Area Real Estate Information System), our MLS provider. Per the BAREIS bylaws, users of these keys and lock boxes must be current members of BAREIS. Presently, access to a keypad is limited by BAREIS bylaws to Realtor® and non-Realtor® real estate agents, and appraisers.

If you’re not aware of it, the lock box system currently maintained by BAREIS extends to the following areas:

1. Marin Association of Realtors

2. Solano Association of Realtors

3. Northern Solano Association of Realtors, and

4. NorBAR, consisting of:

a. Mendocino Chapter, which is currently under the Multacc lock box system and will convert directly to SUPRA AEIII with the rest of NorBAR;

b. Sonoma County chapters, which own their AEII lock boxes but lease their AEII key pads;

c. Napa County chapter, the agents of which own both their AEII lock boxes and their AEII key pads; and

d. Lake County chapter, to which this article does not apply inasmuch as they belong to the Lake County MLS.

As a consequence of SUPRA Products no longer supporting the AEII equipment, we are faced with converting to the AEIII system. Significant differences between the AEII and AEIII systems and equipment are:

1. As presently envisioned, the membership database (“roster”) will be maintained by the Associations, for Realtor® and non-Realtor® MLS members alike, while the code update/access computer will now be located at a remote site under the auspices of SUPRA.

2. The listing data base, for use with the SUPRA eKEY, will be provided under a separate contract between BAREIS and SUPRA Products.

3. The new-generation AEIII (IR) infrared lock box, which when introduced and placed in service, will provide “point and beam” lock box access and allow a number of third-party (i.e., non-SUPRA) products to be used by MLS members to access lock boxes. (Note: AEIII keys will still operate the AEII lock boxes). The AEIII (IR) infrared lock boxes will be priced competitively with the existing AEII lock boxes, that is, about $85 to $95 each.

4. The keys, which will now come in two varieties:

a. The DisplayKEY (an electronic lock box key) together with the DisplayKEY

HotSync cradle. This setup equates closely with the use and functionality of the existing AEII keypads except that the DisplayKEY is capable of receiving brief on-screen messages from the Association and the agent’s broker.

b. The eKEY, which is basically a PDA (Personal Digital Assistant) paired with an eSYNC cradle and eKEY shell. The eKEY shell encloses the PDA, weatherizes the key and allows access to the lock box. This eKEY is capable not only of opening AEII and AEIII (IR) lock boxes but of storing the listing data base, membership roster and other information/applications (such as Mapopolis®, a lite version of LoanPro®, Top Producer® “Lite” software, etc.).

5. Access control. Presently, access codes are updated monthly by placing a call to KIM. The new keypads, both AEIII DisplayKEY and AEIII eKEY, can be set up to renew the access code either daily or weekly. While this may seem tedious, there are important reasons for more frequent access control updating, as discussed below. Updating of access codes is done by “cradling” the AEIII key for an automatic update in the middle of the night. This also recharges the key battery and, for the eKEY, updates the listing data base in the PDA. If you forget to cradle your key, you can always refresh your access code manually in one of several ways (by telephone as with the KIM system or via the internet at the SUPRA agent web site) that will be explained during conversion training.

FAQ’s:

· Why are we converting to a new lock box system? Ans.: SUPRA will no longer support the AEII (existing) lock box system once the current service agreements expire. Napa, Solano and Northern Solano’s service agreements expired February 28, 2002; Sonoma’s expires July 13, 2005; and Marin’s has or will also expire soon. However, while SUPRA will agree to provide service and warranty coverage (in the case of Sonoma County) through mid-2005, they will not support (or manufacture) the product (that is, the AEII SuperKey key pads and lock boxes) after May 2002. As the existing products fail and current inventories of keys and boxes are depleted, agents will have to purchase AEIII products. AEIII products will not work without the AEIII system in place. Additionally, the Mendocino Chapter of NorBAR is already overdue for upgrading of their system. Attempting to do a sequenced or “stair-step” conversion, that is, convert Mendocino, Napa and Solano chapters at different times, would result in having to maintain two access systems (“KIM” for the AEII key pads and the SUPRA-operated service computer system for the AEIII key pads) at considerable additional cost to the remaining AEII keypad users.

· Will existing SUPRA-compatible PDAs (i.e., Palm Vx, m500, m505 or m515 series models) work with the AEIII equipment? Ans.: Yes.

· Will the AEIII keypads work with the AEII lock boxes? Ans.: Yes.

· Do I need to replace my current (AEII) lock boxes? Ans.: No.

· Will the AEII keypads work with the AEIII infrared lock box? Ans.: No.

· Why do we need to update access codes daily or weekly? Ans.: For three reasons: (1) better lock box (and client property) access security (we don’t have to wait as long when a key is lost or otherwise compromised); (2) to recharge the batteries in the key; and (3) timely and effective updating of the E-key listing database.

· How much will this cost me? Ans.: We have not completed negotiating the contract with SUPRA, so prices are not yet firmed up. Additionally, the DisplayKEY pricing is affected by whether or not we offer the eKEY option. We expect DisplayKEY pricing for Napa and Sonoma county chapters to be reasonable. The eKEY price should come in around the $25.00/month range, providing the agent already has a Palm computer. Other factors about the pricing that have been established at this time are:

* DisplayKEY These fees will be billed annually by SUPRA directly to

the keyholder. The contract price will either remain fixed for the 6-year contract period or we can step the price in 2-year increments, which will allow a lower initial price.

* eKEY This fee will be billed monthly by SUPRA directly to the

keyholder.

· If I choose the eKEY, does the monthly fee include a PDA? Ans.: No. The agent must purchase a Palm Vx, m500, m505 or m515 model computer, either from SUPRA or any other supplier.

· Will I have to cradle my key daily or weekly? Ans.: based on recommendations from SUPRA as well as input from other NorBAR agents who are currently using a SUPRA product needing to be cradled, we intend to opt for daily cradling.

· When will training on this new equipment take place? Ans.: Training is planned approximately 90 days prior to conversion.

· Does SUPRA have a website? Ans.: Yes; www.supra-products.com

· How do I contact you to comment about this? Ans.: SkipRealty@aol.com.

The Chairman’s Corner… (June 2002)

Skip Keyser, CCIM

2002 NorBAR Chairman

Hats Off to Affiliates

There’s an axiom that “The older you get, the faster you used to run.” This manifests itself whenever two or more Realtors® get together who differ in age by 10 years or more. The conversation invariably goes something like:

“Why I remember when we had one-page purchase agreements…”

Which is sometimes hilarious when the speaker is only 37 years old and wouldn’t know a one-page purchase agreement if it came up and bit him on the ankle (or some other part of his anatomy).

Not to be outdone, the listener, especially if he or she is older than the speaker, replies with:

“Well I remember when we used to close deals with an exchange of broken twigs and clumps of dirt!”

All of which might be true, but I’ll wager that even in those days it was some Affiliate who went out and rounded up the broken twigs and clumps of dirt.

And that brings me to the subject of this month’s column, namely how much Realtors® owe to the Affiliate Members of NorBAR.

As anyone in this business who is not like totally clueless knows, it’s Affiliates who make the real estate business function as smoothly as it does. Or who, when things do go wrong, are responsible for the situation not being any worse than it is and who often manages to make it better. If you doubt this, just try to close your next transaction without the aid of a title officer, escrow coordinator, lender, pest control inspector, contractor or insurance agent.

For that matter, try to get your next listing without the help of the same individuals, albeit on a more subtle level. I give you, for example, the now-sorely-missed mortgage broker from Napa who, year-in year-out, put together, with the able assistance of his wife, a quarterly synopsis of sales data, complete with 5-year trend charts showing historical information for about a dozen of Napa’s major neighborhoods.

I say now-sorely-missed, because this Affiliate and his wife are out of the area for a year or so on a community service mission for their church. Meanwhile, the rest of us Realtors®, who used to take this data and convince our clients we had a firm grasp on the market dynamics of the typical Napa 2BD/1Ba $450,000 fixer-upper, are sitting around wondering what the heck happened.

And then there’s the story of the Affiliates who, single handed, arrange for weekly speakers at MLS caravan meetings, coordinate special events, and arrange for refreshments. They do this without any more than a nod and occasional round of applause from the gathered Realtors®, most of whom are busy plotting their next foray into Napa’s $750,000 starter-home market.

I’m sure it’s the same at other chapters in NorBAR. If it wasn’t for the Affiliates, things wouldn’t get done. And all the time managing to respond with a smile and a ‘can-do’ attitude to our requests for countless property profiles, lender pre-quals, insurance quotes, pest inspections and last minute repairs at 7:30 on Sunday evenings.

Ok, so I exaggerate. As Keith used to tell me when I first started in this business, “Boy, if I’ve told you once, I’ve told you a million times. Don’t exaggerate!” Keith passed away recently, which shocked us all. I’d like to think Keith had an appreciation for Affiliates. He certainly had a good appreciation for - and understanding of – people. And he was the consummate salesman and a good trainer of agents. But I digress…

So, what can we, as full-blooded, card-carrying Realtors® do to recognize Affiliates? Well (I hate to keep beating you over the head with “Napa this…” and “Napa that…” but it is the chapter I’m most familiar with) here’s some things we’ve tried in Napa. I’m sure other NorBAR chapters employ similar (and maybe even better) tactics. If not, consider:

1. Reserving a spot on your chapter board of directors for an Affiliate.

2. Having an Affiliate Appreciation Day.

3. Whenever possible, referring business to people and firms who are Affiliate Members.

4. Selecting and recognizing an Affiliate Of The Year.

5. Saying “Thank you” the next time some Affiliate busts his or her hump for you.

6. Getting off dead center and helping out the Affiliates the next time your chapter is planning an event.

So hats off to Affiliates. Affiliates are, after all, the sine qua non of the professional real estate practitioner. [Look that up in your Funk & Wagnalls.]

Oh, and about that 2Bd/1Ba fixer-upper for $450,000. It’s sale pending. One of our Affiliate Members bought it for a rental.

That’s all I have time for this month. I’ve got to go practice cradling my Supra E-key for its daily update.

The Chairman’s Corner… (July 2002)

Skip Keyser, CCIM

2002 NorBAR Chairman

Don't Never Volunteer Fer Nothin'

A long time ago in another occupation (are there any Realtors® who actually started their working lives in real estate?) I had a mentor who advised "Don't never volunteer for nothin'." Ironically we were both serving in submarines at the time, which is an all-volunteer service. Maybe that was his point.

Fortunately, I either forgot or chose to disregard this advice. Like a good many Realtors® and affiliates, I have an inherent inability to say no. Consequently I have had the opportunity to meet and serve with a surprisingly diverse group of individuals from all walks of life. And while the time away from business hasn't been particularly remunerative, the experience has been its own reward.

If you are not already involved up to your eyeballs in non-profit, not-for-profit, civic, charitable or fraternal organizations, let me be the first to suggest an excellent venue in which to get involved - your local or regional association of Realtors®.

If the thought of getting any more involved in real estate doesn’t do anything for you, I understand. One of the two candidates for 2004 Treasurer of the California Association of Realtors® has on his campaign brochure the statement “Real estate is not my life – my family is! I agree.

So get involved somewhere else. On the civic front, most (if not all) cities and counties have citizen's committees for variety issues. Often these groups are instrumental in drafting ordinances that have a significant impact in the local real estate market. There is certainly no reason why Realtors should not be represented on these committees, and every reason why they should be.

As one example of this type of volunteer service, almost every city and county in the NorBAR region recently undertook an update to the housing element of their general plan. In the case of the City of Napa, approximately fifteen citizens from various organizations were involved in this update, including two members from NorBAR. Although this process involved numerous public workshops, hearings, and meetings over a 15 month period, the fact that Realtors were on the committee ensured that our experience and views on real estate development were heard. It also allowed these Realtors to work closely with others who had different views on real estate, development and land use. We learned something and I’m sure the other committee members did too. At the end of 15 months we were still talking to each other and had produced what most of us thought was a pretty good product. Apparently others agree: the City of Napa housing element just received an “Award of Merit” from the Northern Section California Chapter of the American Planning Association.

The bottom line: get more involved in your profession and community. There are people and organizations out there who need your experience, knowledge and insight. If you don’t have any, they can use your help in other ways.

So don’t never volunteer fer nothin’. Unless you want to count.

Remember, there is nothing so far away as yesterday.

The Chairman’s Corner… (September 2002)

Skip Keyser, CCIM

2002 NorBAR Chairman

The Case For City-Based RETTs

Recently, in response to the recognized need for equitable amounts of privately-developed affordable housing, various cities in the NorBAR area have explored new funding sources to improve housing affordability. One item being looked at in some communities is a city-based Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT).

The proposal to use a city-based RETT to fund private-sector or quasi-public development of affordable housing envisions enacting a real estate transfer tax similar to the county-based transfer tax on the sale of real estate. The current state-wide county RETT is $0.55 per $500 of sales price (commonly mis-quoted as $1.10 per $1000) or 0.11% (that’s a little over 1/10^th of 1 percent).

For such a city-based RETT dedicated to improving housing affordability, the revenue generated by a 0.11% RETT in a typical 70,000 population city would be in the neighborhood of $270,000 per year. Most private sector not-for-profit affordable housing organizations have the capability of leveraging this by a ratio of 4 or 5 to 1, so that $270,000 in seed money can result in $1,350,000 of affordable housing.

Unfortunately, the knee-jerk reaction of some in the real estate community to a city-based RETT borders on the "Over my dead body" approach or (to borrow from Winston Churchill) "We shall fight [this] on the beaches, on the landing grounds, in the fields, in the streets and in the hills, and we shall never surrender."

Rhetoric aside, there is a case to be made for a city-based RETT dedicated to improving housing affordability.

First: if there is any chance to actually put affordable housing on the ground, an identified, dedicated, continuing funding source must be established. These funds would then be used by private developers and private not-for-profit organizations such as Napa Valley Community Housing, as seed money for matching federal and state grants, as well as to acquire land ("land banking") for future private-sector affordable housing development.

Second, having equitable inventories of affordable housing directly benefits our communities. Improved housing affordability, resulting in increased amounts of housing that is affordable to teachers, police and fire personnel, retail workers, contractors and building trades personnel, and - yes – Realtors®, allows more segments of a community to reside in the area they grew up and work in. Families who work, but cannot afford to live, in our communities must reside elsewhere and commute to work. It should come as no surprise then that we as taxpayers will have to compete with other cities for the services of the very individuals who form the fabric of our infrastructure. This means higher taxes to pay the wages necessary to compensate for the increased cost of commuting to or living in our communities. Therefore, the lack of affordable housing already directly increases the cost to homeowners and indirectly degrades a community’s infrastructure by causing relocation of the skills outside the community.

Third, the lack of affordable housing is a serious, and present, problem. Based on the average sales price for a 2 bedroom 1 bathroom home in Napa during the last 6 months ($270,540), it would take a combined income of $94,852 to afford such a home. For the average 3 bedroom 2 bathroom home that sold during the same period ($369,302), the combined income must be $129,478. Clearly we are not talking about the poor and impoverished. For a four-year certified school teacher ($38,272/year) and a city police officer ($60,112/year), their combined income of $98,384 leaves them only $31,094 short of being able to afford such a 3 bedroom 2 bathroom home.

Fourth, a city-based RETT is not particularly onerous, burdensome or expensive. For a 0.11% transfer tax such as is now levied at the county level, the additional transfer tax on a $300,000 home would be $330. This is not far above the price of the average appraisal and, whether borne by the seller or passed on to the buyer, it’s doubtful that $330 will make or break any given transaction. Certainly, the hyperbole of “…thousands of real estate transaction will be lost…” or “…105,000 more families won’t be able to afford homes,” remarks which are frequently thrown about as reasons for opposing any proposal such as a city-based RETT, does not stand up to the test of reasonableness.

Fifth, I think a cogent argument can be made that Realtors® are more likely to benefit from increased affordable housing than from increased above-moderate housing. Without going into another example, I’ll instead ask the question of whether or not the seller of an affordable home is more likely to use a Realtor® and pay a full commission than is the seller of some of the run-of-the-mill $1,000,000 to $3,000,000 homes we’ve recently seen on the market?

What are some of the mythical arguments used against city-based RETTs? For the most part they are of the “Chicken Little” (as in “The sky is falling, the sky is falling!”) or “This will end western civilization as we know it” variety. Chief among these are:

a. MYTH: It’s unfair on property owners to enact a city-based real estate transfer tax to ease the housing affordability crisis. FACT: Inasmuch as those fortunate enough to own real property and to have benefited from the substantial rise in housing prices over the past decade are also those who stand to benefit from more affordable housing, it is reasonable to ask them to bear a small additional cost for this related issue.

b. MYTH: A city based RETT won’t pass the 2/3 majority required under post-Proposition 13 legislation. FACT: While a 2/3 majority is required for non-general fund revenue items, only a simple majority (50% + 1) is required for general fund items. How do we ensure the funds are then spent on affordable housing? According to the City of Napa Finance Director, the easiest way is to pass a companion measure (again only requiring a simple majority), expressing the intent of the voters that the revenue so generated be spent on the stated purpose. To the extent that elected members of the city council feel bound by such voter mandates, this ensures the increased revenue is allocated to its intended purpose - affordable housing.

c. MYTH: City based RETTs are unheard of. FACT: A surprising number of cities in the NorBAR area have RETTs, many above the county-based $1.10/$1000 level. For example:

Petaluma - $2.00 per $1000

Cotati - $1.90 per $1000

Sebastopol - $2.00 per $1000

Rohnert Park - $1.10 per $1000

Cloverdale - $1.10 per $1000

Santa Rosa - $2.00 per $1000

d. MYTH: This is just the camel’s nose under the tent flap. Pretty soon everyone will be adding taxes to real estate to fund their pet project. FACT: If a majority of the voters approve such taxes this is true. History, however, especially in California, proves otherwise, particularly in light of Proposition 13. Time and again, if fiscal oversight appears to be lacking or the case for special funding is not clearly spelled out, voters have been reluctant to pass new tax and revenue measures. However, where such oversight and demonstrated need can be shown, voters will respond affirmatively and judiciously.

And last, but certainly not least, the rallying cry of reactionary individuals everywhere is sure to rear its ugly head in the form of "This is a particularly egregious violation of Property Rights!”

To that, I can only say that with property rights come property responsibilities.

Furthermore, when it comes to a city-based real estate transfer tax designed to ease the housing affordability crisis facing California in general and the Bay Area in particular, I think the 3-R test is satisfied. It’s Reasonable, it’s Related, and it’s Responsible. And I think it warrants further consideration.

A closing note. I don’t expect that many readers of this commentary will agree with what I have to say. That’s fine and I’d like to hear contrary views. However, as you give it your best shot, stay focused and on target. Make your arguments and examples concrete, concise and cogent. Avoid fallacies and non-rational reasoning (such as appealing to the emotions of fear, pity, spite, or prejudice), generalizations, ad hominem attacks (attacks on the person whose view you disagree with rather than the idea being debated), circular reasoning, or post-hoc reasoning.

Send your comments to SkipRealty@aol.com or fax them to 707-251-0224. I look forward to hearing what you have to say on this issue.

Sidebar 1: WHAT IS AFFORDABLE HOUSING?

If you're not familiar with some of the terminology used in this article, affordable housing is housing that can be purchased or rented without spending more than 30% of a person's total income.

Housing is further categorized into one of four categories: very low income housing (affordable to those who earn less than 50% of the median income); low income housing (between 50% and 80% of the median income); moderate housing (80% to 120% of median income) and above-moderate housing (more than 120% of median income).

Median incomes are based on US Census data and published by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. They are based on family size. In the Napa/Solano demographic area, median income is:

Family Size Median Income

1 $39,000

2 $44,600

3 $50,100

4 $55,700

Median incomes (or housing prices) are not average incomes (or prices). They are the income (price) that is in the middle. A simple example is to take three incomes of $25,000, $40,000 and $1,000,000. The Median income is $40,000; the Average income is $355,000 ($1,065,000/3).

To put Median Incomes in perspective, for a family of four living in the Napa/Solano area, affordable housing is housing that costs less than $1393/month ($55,700/year = $4642/month x 0.30 = $1392). The average 2 bedroom 1 bathroom home recently sold in Napa costs $2371/month; the average 3 bedroom 2 bathroom home in Napa costs $3237/month. These figures are based on the average recent sales price from MLS, with 5% down, 7.5% financing, 30-year mortgage, 0.0125% taxes, and typical insurance and PMI costs.

Sidebar 2: WHAT’S HAPPENING IN CALIFORNIA

One factor driving the housing affordability crisis in California is the growth in population. Herewith some facts and figures about our state:

California has the 5^th largest economy in the world, larger than that of France, and we’re closing in on #4, the United Kingdom.

California has a population of roughly 35,000,000. Put another way, 1 of every 7 people living in the United States lives in California.

Based on information presented at the 2001 Napa City Economic Summit, California’s population is expected to increase by 6,000,000 every decade over the next 40 years. By 2040, California is expected to have a population of close to 60,000,000.

Where does this growth come from? In California, the annual population change is driven by:

525,000 Births

300,000 Net Immigration (foreign) and Migration (domestic)

-225,000 Deaths

600,000 Annual Increase

If you think the housing affordability crisis is serious now, just wait a few years. You can stop development, and you might even be able to reduce immigration, but you can’t stop the growth from the birth rate.

The Chairman’s Corner… (November 2002)

Skip Keyser, CCIM

2002 NorBAR Chairman

9/11

By the time you read this, the one-year anniversary of 9-11 will have passed. And yet there remains a point to be made about the 366 individuals who lost their lives trying to save others. I speak of the 343 New York City firefighters and 23 New York City police lost at the World Trade Center.

In reference to the 3rd, 4th and 5th Marine Divisions who fought at Iwo Jima from 19 February to 16 March 1945, Admiral Nimitz stated that “uncommon valor was a common virtue.” The same should be said of the 366.

But in going into combat, there is the expectation that some will die. It is, in most situations, an inevitable consequence of armed conflict. Youth, inexperience, hope, trust in your immediate comrades, and training and preparation convince you that you will not only survive but also prevail. But in any serious combat, you know many around you will die. Not so the 366.

That is not to say that loss of life isn't a constant companion for firefighters and police. It just isn't expected on a given day or on a large scale. So, too, with the 366.

We now know otherwise. We know that for 366 firefighters and police, what started out as a routine emergency call turned terribly tragic. While others did the sensible thing and tried to escape the World Trade Center, these 366 rushed into the buildings. Their goal was to save others. How many they actually saved will never be known for certain, but it must have been many more than 366.

The scale of their attempt is unfathomable to those not involved in such efforts. T here are recent reports that firefighters gained the 89th floor of one World Trade Center building. Taken in context, realizing that they were climbing up stairs on foot, fighting against the down-rushing crush of escaping people, wearing heavy protective gear and burdened with fire hoses and other equipment, some struggled in a Herculean effort almost a sixth of a mile straight upward before they were killed.

And what did they leave behind, these 366?

They left behind wives and husbands who will never again hear their voice or feel their touch.

They left behind daughters who can no longer look forward to being escorted down the aisle by their fathers.

They left behind parents who forever more will feel the pain and loss of having survived the death of one of their children.

It is probably safe to assume some left behind spouses with whom they had recently argued and had yet to make up. And some may have left for work that day not having kissed or hugged or even touched, for the last time, those whom they held so dear.

And some no doubt left behind wives, or daughters, or daughters-in-law, who have since given birth to sons, daughters or grandchildren who they will never see or have the opportunity to hold. They will never know the joy of holding these children when not much larger than both hands held together. They will never know the joy of later months when these infants first focus and recognize someone and break into a smile. All this is forfeit for the 366.

Forfeit in a cauldron of heat, smoke and fire brought on by maniacal acts of 19 individuals, acts that will forever place them beyond the pale of humanity.

Forfeit by their sense of duty, which demanded they place the safety of others above concern for their own well being.

Forfeit in a headlong rush to try and save others.

Forfeit, these 366.

These 366 heroes.

The Chairman’s Corner… (December 2002)

Skip Keyser, CCIM

2002 NorBAR Chairman

Swan Song

This is the last article I get to write for the NorBAR News and it will not be very long. It is, however, probably the most important article I'll write. It's a thank you to all the Realtors® and staff who make NorBAR possible.

First and foremost are the Realtors® who comprise NorBAR. Believe it or not we're almost 2000 strong, up from just over 1600 last December. 2000 is an important number, inasmuch as (unless the National Association of Realtors® changes its rules in the interim) this is the point that our association will be granted a designated NAR director. In any event, it's the day-in day-out professionalism of each NorBAR Realtor® that makes it worthwhile for those buying and selling real estate in Napa, Sonoma, Lake or Mendocino counties to choose a Realtor® to represent them.

Second are NorBAR chapter officers who keep this organization viable at the local level of the ten chapters that make up NorBAR. Many of these officers are also NorBAR and/or CAR directors in their own right and through their efforts the individual chapters are able to carry out their programs at the grassroots level.

Third are the California Association of Realtors® directors who have served throughout this year on various committees and in various other ways at the three business meetings CAR held in 2002 in Hollywood, Sacramento and - most recently - Long Beach. As most of you know, NorBAR is a member - along with Marin, Solano, Northern Solano, Lake and Coastal Mendocino, of Region IV. Thus, the following CAR directors from NorBAR (listed in alphabetical order) have dedicated themselves to helping other Realtors® in our region through representation at CAR: Linda Carroll - Napa, Curtis Carruth - Napa, Ray Hansen – Mendocino, Diane Harris – North County, Shirley Mallin - Santa Rosa, Terriann McGowan – Santa Rosa, Beth Robertson – Rohnert Park, Mike Silvas - Napa, Felice Torri - Sonoma, Mike Vieth - Rhonert Park-Cotai, R.Q Williams - Napa, Cynthia Wood (Region IV Chair-elect) – Sonoma, and Terry Wunderlich – Napa.

Fourth are the NorBAR directors who, ten months out of the year, assemble in Santa Rosa to conduct the formal business of the North Bay Association of Realtors. It has been my pleasure this year to serve with this dedicated group of professionals. Hopefully, we've made the job of each Realtor® in NorBAR a little easier (or at least not more difficult). The 2002 NorBAR directors are (again, in alphabetical order): Curtis Carruth - Napa, Jan Etheredge - North County, Laura Hall - Lake County, Ray Hansen (Immediate Past Chair) - Mendocino, Lynda Jensen - Napa, Rick Laws, Santa Rosa, Shirley Mallin - Santa Rosa, Tim Moffett (NorBAR Treasurer) - Sebastopol, Kimberly Pels - Petaluma, Denise Ridley - Mendocino, Phyllis Sands - Russian River, Felice Torri - Sonoma and Mike Vieth (NorBAR Chair-elect) - Rhonert Park-Cotai.

Last, but certainly not least, are the NorBAR staff. One aspect of today's hooked-up, wired-in, on-line method of doing business is that - ostensibly - it makes each Realtor® more efficient. However, a definite drawback is the fact that it is possible to go for a year or more without ever meeting one of NorBAR's staff in person. Therefore, those of you who have not had the opportunity to stop in at the Santa Rosa or Napa service centers, or who have not met a NorBAR staff member at any of the many outreach visits they've made to the chapters, have missed the opportunity to meet one of the most professional and 'user-friendly' staffs I've ever had the opportunity to work with. It is the following individuals who actually make NorBAR work on a day-to-day basis:

Yvonne Cornelius - Executive Vice President
Kathy Hayes - Governmental Affairs Director
Teresa Navarro - Financial Services Administrator
Lisa Westerman - Membership Administrator
Julya Scholte - Santa Rosa Service Center Office Manager
Theresa Hazeltine - Napa Service Center Administrator
Marilyn Kesterman - Customer Service Representative
Linda Bianchi - Professional Standards

Thanks to all of you for the opportunity to work with a great bunch of people this year.

Installation Remarks [as incoming President] to the North Bay Association of Realtors (January 2002)

PAT MILLER CALLED ME TWO DAYS AGO AND ASKED ME WHAT I THOUGHT ABOUT SAYING A FEW WORDS AT TODAY’S INSTALLATION. MY IMMEDIATE RESPONSE WAS THAT I FELT A LITTLE LIKE THE CONDEMNED MAN, WHO AS HE STOOD ON THE GALLOWS, WAS ASKED WHAT HE THOUGHT ABOUT BEING PART OF SUCH AN IMPORTANT EVENT. HIS REPLY WAS THAT “WERE IT NOT FOR THE HONOR OF THE OCCASION, I’D JUST AS SOON BE DOING SOMETHING ELSE.”

FOR REASONS WHICH I WILL ADDRESS IN A MINUTE, I DO NOT INTEND TO DISCUSS FINANCIAL PARTICULARS BUT WILL RATHER PROVIDE A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF WHAT WE INTEND TO ACCOMPLISH THIS YEAR. FOR THOSE OF YOU INTERESTED, SPECIFIC INFORMATION ABOUT THE FINANCIAL POSITION OF NorBAR WILL BE AVAILABLE FROM YOUR INDIVIDUAL DIRECTORS IN THE NEAR FUTURE.

AS NorBAR ENTERS ITS 5TH YEAR OF OPERATIONS, IT IS UNDERGOING A CLASSIC TRANSFORMATION FROM GROWTH-AND-EXPANSION TO CONSOLIDATION. HOWEVER, THE FINANCIAL PORTION OF THIS TRANSITION IS NOT COMPLETE AND IT HAS NOT BEEN AN ENTIRELY TROUBLE-FREE PROCESS.

DURING THE PAST YEAR, NorBAR’S INITIAL EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT LEFT THE ORGANIZATION. THE GOOD NEWS IS THAT WE WERE VERY FORTUNATE TO OBTAIN LINDA BIANCHI AS OUR NEW EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT UNDER A SHARED SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH THE MARIN ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS. THE BAD NEWS IS THAT, AS IS INEVITABLE IN THESE SITUATIONS, A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF FINANCIAL CORPORATE KNOWLEDGE WAS LOST WITH ANN WATKINS’ DEPARTURE.

AT ABOUT THE SAME TIME, WE SHIFTED OUR ACCOUNTING SOFTWARE FROM QUICK BOOKS TO PEACHTREE AND BROUGHT ON A NEW NorBAR STAFF ACCOUNTING PERSON. THE GOOD NEWS IS THAT TERESSA NAVARO HAS PROVEN TO BE A KNOWLEDGEABLE, CAPABLE AND TIRELESS ACCOUNTING CLERK. THE BAD NEWS IS THAT WE STILL HAVEN’T WORKED ALL THE BUGS OUT OF OUR NEW ACCOUNTING SYSTEM. ONE EXAMPLE OF THIS IS THE CONTINUING DIFFICULTY WE EXPERIENCE IN GETTING OUR SERVICE CENTER POINT OF SALE SOFTWARE TO TALK TO OUR ACCOUNTING SOFTWARE.

ALL OF THIS HAS BEEN COMPLICATED BY THE FACT THAT SINCE NorBAR’S INCEPTION, STAFF AND THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS HAS BEEN OCCUPIED WITH WRAPPING UP THE NUMEROUS AND SEEMINGLY NEVER ENDING DETAILS OF THE ASSOCIATION MERGERS OUT OF WHICH NorBAR WAS FORMED. NOT THE LEAST OF THESE, IN TERMS OF DIFFICULTY AND LENGTH OF TIME, IS (I REGRET TO SAY) THE DISOLUTION AND ABSORPTION OF THE NAPA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS. OF COURSE, FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVE SERVED ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, THIS COMES AS NO SURPRISE – NAPA HAS ALWAYS BEEN A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT. AND I’M NOT JUST REFERRING TO OUR POSITION AS THE PRE-EMINENT PRODUCER OF PREMIUM WINE IN THE NORTHERN CALIFORNIA REGION.

ANOTHER ASPECT OF NorBAR’S FINANCIAL OPERATIONS IS THAT DURING THE MERGER AND ABSORPTION PHASE OF OUR GROWTH WE WERE ABLE TO MAINTAIN ONE OF THE LOWEST LOCAL DUES STRUCTURES OF ANY NORTHERN CALIFORNIA REALTOR ASSOCIATION. AS PART OF OUR ONGOING REVIEW, WE WILL CONTINUE TO LOOK AT THIS ASPECT OF OUR OPERATIONS AS WELL AS OTHER MEMBER BENEFITS TO MAKE SURE WE CONTINUE TO PROVIDE THE MEMBERSHIP WITH THE BEST SERVICE POSSIBLE AT THE LOWEST COST.

AS A RESULT OF ALL THE ABOVE, WE ARE IN A POSITION, FOR THE FIRST TIME IN SEVERAL YEARS, TO AVAIL OURSELVES OF AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF OUR FINANCIAL POSITION. ACCORDINGLY, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS HAS RETAINED THE SERVICES OF CINDY VARNI, A CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT, TO WORK WITH NorBAR STAFF AND THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS TO CONDUCT AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF NorBAR FINANCIALS AND ADVISE US AS TO IMPROVEMENTS THAT CAN BE MADE TO OUR ACCOUNTING PROCEDURES. MS. VARNIE IS WELL QUALIFIED TO PERFORM THIS WORK. PRIOR TO BECOMING AN INDEPENDENT CPA, SHE WAS WITH THE ACCOUNTING FIRM OF PRESENTI AND BRINKER AND SHE PREVIOUSLY CONDUCTED THE AUDIT OF THE NAPA ASSOCIATION FIANANCES PRIOR TO ITS MERGER WITH NorBAR.

WE ANTICIPATE HAVING THIS FINANCIAL REVIEW COMPLETED BY MID FEBRUARY IN TIME FOR THE FIRST MEETING OF THIS YEAR’S NorBAR BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE. I, LINDA BIANCHI, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND NorBAR STAFF WILL INSTITUTE MS. VARNIE’S RECOMMENDATIONS AS RAPIDLY AS POSSIBLE DURING THE SUCCEEDING MONTHS.

THEREFORE, THE COMING YEAR WILL SEE INCREASED EMPHASIS ON FINE TUNING AND STREAMLINING OUR FINANCIAL POSITION AND OUR ACCOUNTING SYSTEM. I LOOK FORWARD TO REPORTING THE RESULTS OF OUR EFFORTS AT THE NEXT ANNUAL MEETING.

THANK YOU.

Installation Remarks [as incoming Chapter President] to the Napa Chapter of North Bay Association of Realtors, January 19, 1990

EVERY ONCE AND A WHILE, ONE HAS THE PLEASURE OF MAKING A FEW REMARKS AT AN OCCASION SUCH AS THIS. OUT OF CONSIDERATION FOR YOUR TIME, MY REMARKS WILL BE BRIEF AND TOO THE POINT AND WILL COVER THREE THINGS.

FIRST, I WANT TO THANK ALL OF YOU WHO ATTENDED TODAY’S INSTALLATION AND ESPECIALLY THOSE OF YOU WHO HAD A HAND IN ITS ORGANIZATION. FOR THOSE WHO MIGHT NOT HAVE NOTICED, THE ORGANIZERS OF TODAY’S EVENT ARE LISTED ON THE BACK OF YOUR PROGRAM. SPECIAL THANKS GO TO JONNA BECK OF FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE WHO HEADED UP THE ORGANIZING COMMITTEE.

SECOND, WE SHOULD REMEMBER THAT THE FOCUS OF TODAY’S EVENT IS TO RECOGNIZE THE OUTGOING OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS FOR THEIR EFFORTS OVER THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS. THESE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE SERVED OUR ASSOCIATION AND DESERVE OUR THANKS. THOSE OF US WHO WERE INSTALLED TODAY HAVE YET TO PROVE OUR METTLE AND SHOULD TAKE A BACK SEAT TO THOSE WHO HAVE COME BEFORE US. MORE ABOUT THIS IN A FEW MINUTES.

THIRD, I WOULD LIKE TO EMPHASIZE WHAT ONE CHAPTER DIRECTOR AT OUR LAST BOARD MEETING CALLED THE MISSION STATEMENT FOR THIS YEAR: THAT IS THE TRIAD OF PROFESSIONALISM, COMMUNICATION, AND SERVICE. THIS IN NO WAY IS MEANT TO BE A PEJORATIVE STATEMENT ABOUT THE CURRENT STATUS OF THE NAPA CHAPTER OF NorBAR. AS THE SAYING GOES, IF IT ISN’T BROKEN, DON’T FIX IT. I THINK THE NAPA CHAPTER, IS OPERATING VERY WELL. THE SMOOTHNESS AND SUCCESS WHICH HAVE CHARACTERIZED BOB HARRIS’ LEADERSHIP OVER THE PAST YEAR IS HIGHLIGHTED BY SUCH THINGS AS OUR PRESENCE ON THE INCLUSIONARY ZONING TASK FORCE, THE VOICE WE HAVE (AND WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE) IN THE SO-CALLED VIEW SHED ORDINANCE DEBATE, AND OUR INVOLVEMENT IN THE COMMUNITY AS EVIDENCED BY THE SUCCESSFUL EFFORT EACH OF YOU PUT FORTH IN OUR RECENT CAN TREE FUNDRAISING. THESE ARE NOT INSIGNIFICANT ACCOMPLISHMENTS WHEN ONE CONSIDERS HOW BUSY EVERYONE HAS BEEN FOR THE PAST TWO YEARS.

BUT THERE ARE OTHER SUCCESSES THE NAPA CHAPTER HAS ENJOYED. WE HAVE FOR INSTANCE, GAINED A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF FREEDOM IN HOW WE CONDUCT BUSINESS IN NAPA UNDER THE NorBAR UMBRELLA. TWO YEARS AGO WE CREATED A POSITION FOR AN AFFILIATE DIRECTOR ON THE CHAPTER BOARD OF DIRECTORS IN RECOGNITION OF THE INCREASINGLY IMPORTANT ROLE AFFILIATES PLAY IN OUR BUSINESS. WE ALSO HAVE A UNIQUE SAY IN HOW OUR SERVICE CENTER IS OPERATED AND, MORE IMPORTANTLY, WE RECENTLY OBTAINED PERMISSION FROM THE NorBAR BOARD OF DIRECTORS TO INSTITUTE OUR OWN IN-PERSON ORIENTATION AS A PREREQUISITE FOR FUTURE REALTORS TO JOIN THE NAPA CHAPTER OF THE NORTH BAY ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS.

WE HAVE, IN SHORT, AND THROUGH THE EFFORTS OF REALTORS SUCH AS SHANE, DAVE JOHNSON, RQ WILLIAMS, JUDY NIAMO, DOUG FOWLER, LINDA CARROL AND KATHRYN FETZER, AND AFFILIATES SUCH AS TONI HORVATH, DAVID ANDERSON, LONI BERGIN, AND BETH BEVINGTON, BEEN ABLE TO TAILOR THE NAPA CHAPTER INTO AN ASSOCIATION WHICH REFLECTS OUR DESIRES FOR A MORE PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION. WE CAN DO MORE.

WE CAN, FOR INSTANCE, AND IN MY OPINION WE OUGHT, TO STRIVE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN REALTORS AND REAL ESTATE LICENSEES. THE TIME HAS LONG SINCE COME FOR THE PUBLIC AND THE PRINT MEDIA IN NAPA COUNTY TO REALIZE THAT ‘REALTOR’ IS NOT SYNONYMNOUS WITH ANYONE LICENSED TO SELL REAL ESTATE, BUT RATHER DISTINGUISHES A REAL ESTATE PROFESSIONAL WHO SUBSCRIBES TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF PROFESSIONALISM.

ADDITIONALLY, THERE IS TOO MUCH KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERTISE EMBODIED IN THE NAPA CHAPTER OF REALTORS FOR US TO ANY LONGER FEEL RELUCTANT TO EXPRESS OUR VIEWS ON VITAL REAL ESTATE ISSUES IN NAPA COUNTY. THE FACT THAT WE ARE REALTORS DOES NOT DISENFRANCHISE US. WE NEED NOT BE STRIDENT NOR SHOULD WE ADOPT POSITIONS THAT POLARIZE THE GENERAL PUBLIC. INDEED, WE MAY NOT EVEN SPEAK WITH ONE VOICE. BUT SPEAK WE SHOULD AND PARTICIPATE WE MUST, OR ELSE WE WILL LOSE OUR POSITION AT THE TABLE AND, MORE IMPORTANTLY, WE WILL DO A DISSERVICE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC.

IT IS OUR DESIRE, THEREFORE, TO BUILD IN THE COMING YEAR ON THE SOLID BASE OF SUCCESS ENJOYED BY THE NAPA CHAPTER OF REALTORS BY CONTINUING TO EMPHASIZE PROFESSIONALISM, COMMUNICATION AND SERVICE. PROFESSIONALISM IN MAINTAINING THE HIGH STANDARDS OF REALTORS, COMMUNICATION IN ENSURING THE ACTIONS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS REFLECTS THE CONCERNS OF THE MEMBERSHIP AND THAT THE VOICE OF REALTORS IS HEARD IN THE COMMUNITY, AND SERVICE IN ENSURING THE FOCUS OF THE ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS REMAINS ON ASSISTING REALTORS TO BE SUCCESSFUL IN THEIR DAY-TO-DAY EFFORTS TO MAKE A LIVING IN THE REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY. IN SHORT, IF WE DON’T BURNISH THE IMAGE OF REALTORS AND OUR AFFILIATES, LISTEN TO WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY AND EFFECTIVELY COMMUNICATE THAT TO THE COMMUNITY, AND HELP YOU EARN A LIVING AS A REALTOR, WE’RE NOT DOING OUR JOB.

AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, THE FOCUS TODAY IS ON THOSE WHO HAVE COMPLETED THEIR TERM OF SERVICE WITH THE ASSOCIATION LEADERSHIP. THESE THREE INDIVIDUALS ARE LISTED ON THE BOTTOM OF PAGE THREE OF YOUR PROGRAM. THEREFORE, IF YOU WILL ALL CHARGE YOUR GLASSES AND BE UPSTANDING, I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE A TOAST: TO BOB HARRIS, OUTGOING PRESIDENT, KATHY BALL, OUTGOING NorBAR DIRECTOR, AND TONI HORVATH, OUTGOING CHAPTER DIRECTOR, THANK YOU FOR A JOB WELL DONE.

THANK YOU.

A View from Napa

Real Estate

Lease Negotiating Tips

Santa Rosa - $2.00 per $1000

Sidebar 2: WHAT’S HAPPENING IN CALIFORNIA

No comments:

Post a Comment