uncertaintraveler

Because this is about those who are in power.

You have an extremely odd view of who is in power....

J.C. Watts? Uh...like many others on your list, he is a former congressman. And, I don't think many would say he is in power now, if he ever was. Oh, and you might want to do some homework first...the guy was born in 1957, so it isn't like he even could serve in any war....

I used to like your posts, but geez...your one-sided allegiance is showing through and it isn't pretty.

I don't know the exact number, but the Midland-Odessa stadium can probably seat 15,000 or so rabid fans in reasonable comfort...and probably fit in another two to three thousand if they don't mind standing. I believe the stadium is now called "Grande Communications Stadium."

Maybe the reason no one has responded is because no one knows the answers.

However, with regard to Question 2, I think that would be a bad idea. If something goes wrong with the buyer's home, who do you think they are going to look to first for assistance or to complain? A repair person or the person who sold them their house who just so happens to live next door? I could envision a lot of bad-neighbor problems down the road....especially if the house you sold them turns out to not be very well constructed.

With regard to Question 3, as interest rates rise, the housing market will slow down...for both new and resale homes. Unless you like going blindly into things, I would give serious consideration to where you believe interest rates are headed and then plan accordingly.

Locate some old National Geographics, either in print or on microfilm. I know there were a few published during the 70's and early 80's on Texas and Houston---they have some decent arial photographs of downtown.

A few numbers to consider, as we insist on shrinking our bloated economy.

There are 143 million workers in the US. There are 7.1 million unemployed, or 4.8%. There are an estimated 10 to 15 million illegal aliens in the US. Economists agree that 96% employment is "full employment", meaning that, at any given time, 4% of the work force is between jobs for various reasons, as opposed to unable to find a job.

This means that currently, about 1.1 to 1.5 million people who want to work cannot find a job. If suddenly 7.5 million working illegals are deported, and the 1.5 million Americans immediately filled their jobs, there would be a resulting 6 million worker shortage, or 4.2% of the workforce. Since there would be no way to fill those jobs, because of laws against hiring foreign workers, the US economy would have to shrink 4.2 percent to adjust to the shortage. Since companies do not want to shrink, they will increase wages to attract workers. But, there will still be a 4.2 percent shortage, resulting in inflation, since prices will rise to reflect the higher wages. The rise in prices will be most pronounced in labor intensive industries with low-wage jobs, such as construction, janitorial services and the food service industries.

The economy will only grow when there are enough workers to allow it to do so. Since native-born Americans are producing fewer children (1.8 children per woman), the population will continue to shrink, further limiting the expansion of the economy. Since there are fewer workers, taxes must rise to pay for services. Government wages for military and police will rise fastest, because these jobs are the most dangerous.

Anyone got a solution to this problem that does NOT violate the laws of macro-economics?

AS a general matter, I agree with your basic premise and to some extent your intended point. However, among other issues, your discussion fails to account for (i) the fact that some jobs are created merely because of the existence of another job (i.e, a maid is employed because her employer is too busy to clean because he is employed--but if the employer is no longer employed, then there is no need for the maid), so losing a net of 6 million jobs may not actually occur; (ii) that 1.5 million Americans may not be qualified for, or even want to work in, the jobs that the 7.5 million illegals would leave; (iii) the fact that economies can increase over time (on a gdp basis and on a real basis) even though the total number of workers shrinks during the same time period (see, for example, some European nations); (iv) wage growth is not always, or even often, tied to the number of availabile workers; and (v) that with fewer workers, the demand for government services will be reduced, thereby lowering tax distributions, and the need for tax revenue, not increasing them.

To me, what the underlying issue should be is what kind of economy does the United States wish to become? If we want to be, or remain, an industrial economy, then we need more workers, not less. But if we want to become a service/banking/technical/new world economy, then perhaps less workers would be better after all.

I think it is beautiful, especially along the bay. It also has a nice downtown for such a small city.

I think I'm just going to have to agree to disagree with this...I guess I just have a different idea of what constitutes "beautiful" and "nice."

I want to relocate to another part of Texas. I've got my eyes on Corpus Christi. I like the idea of living in a big city (a little over 300,000 population) on the coast with a mostly Hispanic population (52%).

If anyone out there has any additional information they can give me about Corpus Christi, I would appreciate it.

I wouldn't call Corpus a big city....it only has something like 4 gates in its airport...and I don't think it is a very pretty place, considering the city is littered with refineries and its downtown is somewhere on the scale between blighted and dismal. 10 miles west of the airport is basically rural land though, and lots of it....

E85 ethanol...i think this has tons of potential if we can really get the word out on this stuff and get enough cars to run off of it.

E85, or any ethanol fuel, is a net loss in terms of energy consumption. It takes more hydrocarbons to produce ethanol than the hydrocarbon substitution that you get in return...as in, it uses more energy than it replaces. Plus, it reduces car mileage when used as an additive to gasoline, and actually contributes, instead of reduces, smog problems. Lastly, when you consider the existing tax exemptions to corn producers and agribusiness, ethanol is actually almost twice as expensive to produce as gasoline, because of the diversion in tax revenue (or tax subsidy that must be paid out, depending on your viewpoint). E85 has no real potential as alternative fuel.

MDB, thanks for your post. I have sent you a PM.

DPS says that you're supposed to travel one car length behind the vehicle in front of you for every 10 mph that you're travelling. If you are, then you shouldn't have a problem stopping in time for that person who is stopping at the red light, unless your car needs a brake job.

Uh...that is the measure for highway speeds. If everyone followed DPS' rule everywhere, we would have a constant "moving" gridlock, especially in downtown. Sure, drivers might be able to brake in time, but think how congested the streets would become if people are driving, on average, 20 mph through downtown!

Other projects on Jackson Hill and the Waugh/West Gray area are selling very well too.

Are the Jackson Hill ones really selling or do they just have "sold" signs in front? Or is the developer merely saying that they are selling? I don't really believe that all of the units that have "sold" signs on them are really sold...Its like the guy who owns a business, and it is barely successful, but if he opens up another business, it gives the image of success, and suddenly, he starts making money. So the units may not really be sold, but the developer says they are just so he can make the development look attractive to other buyers....

That's the point of Whole Foods. People shop there to buy healthy natural, healthy products.

Ironically, however, most Whole Food shoppers arrive at the store by driving their gigantic SUV's with a disposable-diaper clad baby in tow. I just love their shoppers hypocritical "be green" philosphy....

If Volvo manages to go gasoline-free in a few years that would be the final nail in GM's and Ford's coffin.

Uhhh...Ford owns Volvo.

The biggest abusers of the red lights downtown are Metro bus drivers. Are they subject to being issued tickets as well? Not only are the buses running these lights more than anyone I see daily, but they are the biggest a-holes on the roads downtown. Cutting off drivers, hogging multiple lanes and clogging traffic. Can the city do something about that?

I completely agree. There's nothing like being cut-off by some idiotic bus driver, or being blocked from turning right because the bus driver (in clear violation of the posted signs) is blocking the road/ramp/driveway, or realizing the bus driver is going to blow right through a red light (even though the light turned red just as the bus was closing its doors and getting ready to accelerate from its stop).

I used to think the same thing until I started taking the bus. Now I'm on the bus driver's side. Get out of our way!

Especially considering how dumb people can drive when in downtown.

Ummm...are you referring to the people who like to mow down pedestrians while driving Metro buses??? If so, then, yeah, people can drive rather stupidly when or around downtown.

There's a persistant story that an A&M alum designed a library for their campus, but forgot to factor in the weight of the books. If so, do you know the details? or is this another urban myth?

Don't know about that...but, in a similar matter and probably as equally untrue, there is a rumor that at Georgia Tech, the school created a huge moving sidewalk to ferry students from one side of the campus to another, but the Tech grads (and engineering faculty) that designed the sidewalk failed to consider the weight of actual passengers on the sidewalk, so now they just have a stationary sidewalk...

Its probably just an urban myth, given that the basic details are always the same and just the name of the school and project changes...

And does every press release about Trump use the words "terrific" and "very successful"???

Dalparadise, you make a somewhat cogent rebuttal....until you say this:

That's why only paying members of the "circle" who are specifically trained in and regulated to follow its rules may participate in the commissions. What makes it fair is that anyone is free to negotiate his terms. So, do so, if you choose.

As noted previously in this thread, certain members of society (i.e., attorneys) don't have to be paying members of the "circle" in order to participate in the commissions, at least when they are the buyer. Because attorneys, who are not paying members of the "circle," and who are exempted from the pertinent statutes (for whatever reason...perhaps because they have been through three years of law school and probably took more than the basic property law class), it makes it a little difficult for realtors to argue that they, and they alone, may, and should, be allowed to participate in the commissions.

I don't think anyone would dispute that the seller's agent "deserves" a commission; what is at issue (I believe..) is what the buyer's agent, or the buyer itself, deserves. By artificially limiting--by statute--who is entitled to share in the commissions, realtors make it impossible for buyers to truly negotiate at least some aspect of the transaction (i.e., where what is arguably 3% of the purchase price for the house is credited). Now, I'm sure there are some who would say where the 3% goes is none of the buyer's concern. But when the buyer does not use a realtor or an agent, how is it not their concern? Why shouldn't they get the 3% that would have otherwise gone to an agent that the buyer didn't use? That's what I find to be wrong about the current system....

And, as an aside, I'm not sure you can say that the MLS system is really "the most effective way of selling a home today" when, by limiting who gets MLS access, realtors effectively limit the ways a home can be sold.

Perhaps the most effective way of selling a home today would be to allow anyone (who do not want to use a seller/listing agent) to put their house in the MLS database and, as a condition of using the MLS service, mandate that a certain percentage of the purchase price goes to the person (whether licensed or not) who offers the seller a good contract. That way, non-realtors/brokers are truly free to negotiate their own terms as to all parts of the deal and the playing field is truly level. And for all of the "special services" realtors offer, if the buyer and seller (who are otherwise not represented by anyone) so choose, they can hire a realtor for such "special services" on an a-la-carte or flat-fee basis (assuming a realtor would accept such a proposal---and I imagine they would), or they can go it alone and pull up the forms they need from the internet and fill them out themselves. Of course, I realize that this method would probably put a lot of realtors out of business....which might be why they don't want others to use what might be a truly effective way to sell a home.

If I negotiate a commission of 6% on a listing. That is MY commission for selling the property. I negotiated 6%, not 3%. If I have to give 3% of my commission away in a transaction on a "co-op" deal then it is now MY business expense, not my sellers. It now comes out of MY selling commission of 6%, follow me?

The home will not sell unless it is priced properly. If you offer what amounts to a market price, less 3% because you don't have representation, why should that "savings" go to the buyer? Why should it not go to the seller? You are a self-professed outsider to the industry so you are not aware of the volume of work involved on both sides of a transaction. If it isn't going to benefit my seller, and it is only going to cause me to have to do spend more time and work taking up the slack on issues normally handled by the Buyer's agent, then explain to me the incentive to either me or my seller to sell their home at 3% below market?

The whole problem with your argument is you are acting as if the commission is one of the pieces "on the board", it's not. It has already been set and is between the Seller and the Agent, not you as a buyer.

I find this reasoning to be a bit much....

First, are you trying to argue that you negotiated a 6% commission without ever considering the possibility that the buyer's agent would make some claim for half of that? Really? Because if that is the case, then why don't realtors demand a 9% commission? Or 12%? That way, both the seller's and the buyer's agent can get a 6% commission. To me...it defies belief for you to argue that you "negotiated" a 6% commission and that, consequently, you don't have to share that with anyone, because...well, as we all know, you basically have to share the commission in order to entice buyer's agents to show your property.

Second, if you, as a agent/broker/realtor/whatever "have to give" (or choose to give) 3% of your commission to only certain members of society (i.e., the buyer's agent), but not to anyone else (i.e., those who aren't licensed brokers/realtors/agents/whatever), how is that justifiable from a legal or business standpoint? Legally, I don't think it is enough for you to say "well, that is how the statute is written." As I argued previously, it appears that attorneys are exempt, as are (possibly) certain other individuals who work in a pro bono capacity. And business-wise, it is a little short-sighted to be unwilling to split the commission with non-brokers/realators because, face it, it isn't like your listing is the only house on the market. Sure, all property is unique, but there are plenty of homes out there and (probably) plenty of people who would be willing to split the commission if it meant closing the deal.

Third, as a tangential comment, the whole "a home will not sell if it isn't priced properly" is a joke. As a practical matter, everyone knows that a house will sell regardless of the price--if you price a house valued at $200K for $100K, do you really think the house won't sell??? And, conversely, if you price a house valued at $100K for $200K, the house will still sell....it will probably just take a while to do so.

Fourth, why shouldn't the "savings" go to the buyer? You write as if you are willing to "rebate" 3% of your commission to the seller if the buyer doesn't have an agent. Somehow, I don't believe that is true. And just what is the volume of work involved on both sides of the transaction? In Texas, aren't most residential real estate transactions driven by abstract and title companies? So how much work does the seller's agent (or buyer's agent, for that matter) really do?

Fifth, you essentially admit that the commission is factored into the price of a home when determining its market value---which, in turn, raises all house prices above their real value. That's a little odd, don't you think? After all, isn't the market value of something (say, a share of stock) based on its intrinsic value (in the case of stock, (simplified, of course) the value is based on assets minus liabilities plus what you believe the future of the company is)---and not on what it costs to buy? Certainly, the value of a share of IBM is based on that formula, and the cost incurred in buying or selling the stock is never factored into its listed price on the NYSE. So why should a house be any different?

In sum, I'm not sure you make a good argument as to why your "negotiated" commission shouldn't be split. The whole system seems incredibly protectionist and incredibly inefficient.

As a buyer, however, the commission should be completely transparent to you. You have no claim on a cent of it, as you are not even paying for your agent's services.

If this is true, then why would a buyer's agent have any claim to the commission? Is the buyer's agent paying for the seller's agent services?

I'm not so sure about that Red.....

I haven't read through all the statutes yet, and although there is a case (Sherman v. Bruton, 497 S.W.2d 316, Tex. Civ. App. 1973) holding that attorneys are not authorized to engage generally in the business of a real estate broker, this case appears to be interpreting a statute containing different language than the current statute. Furthermore, a more recent case, Elin v. Neal, 720 S.W.2d 224 (Tex. Civ. App. -- Houston [14th Dist.] 1986), holds that attorneys are exempt from the entire Real Estate License Act.

The current Real Estate License Act, at Chapter 1101 of the Texas Occupations Code, now reads, in relevant part:

This chapter does not apply to:

(1) an attorney licensed in any state

(Section 1101.005)

Accordingly, by statute, an attorney is exempted from the Chapter 1101 of the Texas Occupations Code, which, at Section 1101.001, is referred to as the Real Estate License Act. So I think it is reasonably safe to say that an attorney can represent themselves and get the commission.

Additionally, however, note that Section 1101.004 of the Texas Occupations Code (a/k/a The Real Estate License Act) says:

Sec. 1101.004. ACTING AS BROKER OR

SALESPERSON. A person acts as a broker or

salesperson under this chapter if the person, with the

expectation of receiving valuable consideration,

directly or indirectly performs or offers, attempts, or

agrees to perform for another person any act

described by Section 1101.002(1), as a part of a

transaction or as an entire transaction.

(V.A.C.S. Art. 6573a, Sec. 4 (part).)

Under an admittedly liberal reading of this provision, one could arguably have their friend be their broker so long as the friend, in so doing, did not have "the expectation of receiving valuable consideration" (i.e., pro-bono work). And, if they gave their friend the 3% commission after the transaction was completed, as a gift, I think there is a reasonable argument that no violation of the Real Estate License Act has occurred.

Furthermore, Section 1101.351 of the Texas Occupations Code (a/k/a The Real Estate License Act) says:

Sec. 1101.351. LICENSE REQUIRED.

(a)

Unless a person holds a license issued under this

chapter, the person may not:

(1) act as or represent that the person is a

broker or salesperson; or

(2) act as a residential rental locator.

Now, as I read all of these provisions, any person who is not a licensed attorney (or any unlicensed person who is acting as a broker with the expectation of receiving valuable consideration), cannot be a broker and receive the brokers commission. However, because attorneys may be totally exempted from the Real Estate License Act, I'm not sure how attorneys are prohibited from acting as a broker for another person....the way I read the statute, I think they could still get the commission.

But, again, I've not read through the entire statute yet so I could be missing something...

I'll have to check on this some more... I can't stand the protectionist nature of the real estate business... it is really disgusting and bordering on anti-trust to me....

I agree...and, apparently, so do some state attorneys general, who are in the early states of bringing antitrust actions against Realtors for the way the MLS services are run.

I think I first heard of the provision on the Greedy Associates Board, but its been ages since I last checked on whether the rule actually exists, if it ever did, and I don't feel like wading through all the statutes.

I do know, however, that when I looked at one place, the salesperson said that, specifically because I was an attorney, I would be entitled to the 3% commission that would otherwise go to a buyer's agent. So maybe the rule really does exist??

Does anyone know of the rule or regulation that says an attorney, who represents themselves as the buyer (i.e., they are their own buyer's agent and does not use a realtor in any way) when purchasing a house, is entitled to the 3% buyer's commission that would have otherwise gone to the buyer's agent? I seem to recall hearing about the provision, but I can't find a specific citation to it anywhere. Anyone know where I might find the rule?

I've been to HK a few times. After 3 or so days, you've pretty much seen everything and done everything. Shopping isn't what it used to be, but you can sometimes pick up good values. The must sees are Victoria Peak (both during the day and at night--try to walk up it at least once!) and a few trips across the Harbor on the Star Ferry...also, HK has a really good natural history museum too (it taught me some things that certainly weren't in my history books!). On land, the best view (from ground level) is across from the HK convention center...I think its at the reunion monument, but the exact name escapes me. Some of the more famous and architectually interesting buildings (like the Bank of China building) can be difficult to reach on foot, but taxis are reasonable if you avoid rush hour. Trams are creaky and can be crowded...and be careful when you exit them because you are often times dropped off in the middle of the road!

Also, if you haven't been around the Cantonese much, be prepared for some loud talkers, as it is (generally speaking) a loud language. The first time I visited HK I was shocked at how chinese it was (I was expecting it to be much more English, or at least, British)....it was a culture shock I wasn't expecting, especially after having traveled around SE Asia for the previous 5 months! Also...beware the humidity. Depending on when you go, it can be pretty rough (worse than Houston..).

You might find some other, more helpful, info on the Hong Kong forum of Flyertalk.com (go to the travel and dining section, then scroll down to Hong Kong).

Thanks BWSchultz!

I sent you a PM with some additional questions. If you could spare a few moments to answer them I'd be really grateful!

The intriguing amenties is one of the things that has me interested about the development. Right now, I live near Memorial Park/Buffalo Bayou/etc, and it is so nice to have the parks so close by....but, from a quick overview of SCR, it looks like you could have a decent house (and at a decent price) without giving up nearby parks and walking trails.

Looking for any updated information on Shadow Creek Ranch...

Are they still selling homes at a brisk pace? How is the increased traffic being handled? Does traffic move smoothly or is it quickly becoming congealed gridlock? How is the quality of construction?

Anyone?