Tree-mendous Power Struggle

Wyatt I have brought the idea of a proposed tree ordinance to the attention of several of the influential people I know in Belmont, some who hold sitting positions. They do not appear inclined to take-up the idea since I believe they tend to shy away from anything which is a political hot potato (unless it’s on their personal agenda). Though I give credit to Bill Dickenson for occasionally challenging his fellow council members, most of the members of our current council (and Planning Department) seem to believe that anything progressive is a threat; as opposed to the other extreme which believe that development should march forward unchecked. The problem with both of these positions is that they are extreme, and we need more fair minded, balanced, and objective people to help make Belmont a great town, prosperous, and with a sustainable and alluring quality of life. Don’t get me wrong, I too love our open spaces and trees but there needs to be a balance struck when considering growth and changes. Until our Belmont City Council becomes more like real council–for the people–and less concerned with their own agendas, I fear nothing will change.

One need look no further than the example of the council’s decision to ban smoking in Belmont to see that these folks are thrusting upon us their personal agenda (see “Where there’s Smoke There’s Fire”).

I bring this point up because it’s just one more an example of what needs to change in Belmont. We need a council who will do what is right for the citizens of Belmont, not what is right for their personal vision of a town they want to create.

The current list of candidates includes two candidates who are strongly supported by the current council members Coralin Feierbach and Dave Warden–two like-minded members who would love nothing more than to eliminate any challenges to their control of the current council; Christine Wozniak, who currently sits on the oppressive planning department and David Braunstein, a teacher from Carlmont High School, who’s legacy is organizing the creation of the Belmont library.

The other opposing two Candidates Jason Born and Broderick Page are challenging the status quo and who the majority of the council desperately want not to win. It is my belief with the shenanigans of Dave Warden trying to decide if he should attempt a write-in campaign, and Dave Braunstein getting back into the race, has everything to do with Dave Warden wanting to leave the council yet clone himself before he does so by convincing David Braunstein to come back to the fray after dropping out. As found in this article by the San Mateo Daily News; “Mr. Warden said at the time, ” [He] was comfortable leaving the council because he endorsed two of the challengers running to take his place”; saying, “Mr. Warden believed newcomers Born and Page lacked experience.”

Ask him how much experience he had when he got elected.

Want to make a change? Make a change in the council. I’m passing this along to Jason Born and Bill Dickenson since if there’s anyone who would even consider this I believe it to be them. Now all the citizens of Belmont have to do is vote.

Disclaimer:

Drew & Christine Morgan are REALTORS/NOTARY PUBLIC in Belmont, CA. with more than 20 years experience in helping sellers and buyers in their community. They may be reached at (650) 508.1441 or emailed at info@morganhomes.com.

You can find them on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/Morganhomes and also find them on Twitter @ https://twitter.com/morganhomes

The information contained in this article is educational and intended for informational purposes only. It does not constitute real estate, tax or legal advice, nor does it substitute for advice specific to your situation. Always consult an appropriate professional familiar with your scenario.

Where There’s Smoke There’s Fire–Belmont’s Smoking Ban

Shermans The smoking ordinance in Belmont was a classic example of what Belmont’s city council is all about. Sure second hand smoke is bad but the issue brought before them was second hand smoke in attached adjacent living spaces–the genesis of the original complaint. However our council (coached by their cronies in other departments with similar agendas—can anyone say Planning Department?) decided to pursue a ban on all outdoor cigarette smoking in Belmont—notice I didn’t say all smoking?

Be clear, this was a personal agenda. Mayor Coralin’s trama had to do with being exposed to second hand smoke from her father and Council Member Dave Warden wanted Belmont to be a "smoke free city". Mr. Warden apparently anointed himself with deciding how one should personally care for themselves stating, "…This ordinance may save lives as it may force smokers to quit or limit smoking".

What they neglected to address was wood burning fireplaces and outdoor BBQ’s–no doubt much worse contributors of air borne carcinogens. Mr. Warden’s argument for not banning other more caustic causes of airborne particulate matter such as that expelled by SUV’s was answered with—"[but] we need cars". So what’s his answer to this one—banning outdoor BBQ’s will stop people from eating unhealthy carcinogen laden foods AND stop the air borne particulate matter they cause. Why wasn’t that a part of the ordinance?

Did anyone notice the volumes of billowing smoke at the Save The Music benefit in Belmont wafting by the children

Dsc_4474save_the_music_3

as they sang on stage? The city doesn’t need to bring in experts to intuitively know that the smoke produced that day alone no doubt exposed more people to more carcinogens than any outdoor citizen puffing away on a cigarette. This council is clearly about tolerance (or lack thereof) and what they personally believe should be acceptable.

Dsc_4475save_the_music_2

Why did they ignore addressing these two issues if their real concern was for the health, welfare and safety of their constituents? Because they only wanted to trample on a minority who they knew would not garner any support; they knew that adding a ban on outdoor BBQ’s and wood burning fireplaces would raise too much opposition—they simply stuck with an ordinance which would get them maximum media attention with minimal resistance.

Agent Exodus in Real Estate

This is an interesting article from the New York Times about agents getting out of the real estate business. Sorry, but I got in the business in 1990 when it was waning and made it through the tough times for the next five years. If these agents aren’t committed to making real estate a career and were only in it for the fast bucks–well, bye then.

I’ve seen plenty of new agents coming along without the commitment and drive necessary to take this industry and their business (and mine) seriously. In fact, they’ve dragged our existing business down with less than professional behavior. (Call first then key safe what does that mean?)

And this article quotes none other than the owner of that company in Seattle, He is quoted, "Some who want to stay in the business are taking a second look at working for commissions." As if to say traditional agents don’t? He goes on, "People who used to turn up their nose (sic) at working for us are now drilling holes to get into the building," said Mr. Kelman of Redfizzle, which pays a salary and a bonus based on customer satisfaction. "He said that during the first six months of 2007, Redfizzle received 2,000 résumés and hired 34 agents, bringing the total at Redfizzle to 40. Mr. Kelman says he expects to hire 35 to 50 more agents in the next year."

OK. Simple math tells me he had 6 employees in the beginning of the year! This was a company that you might remember was working with 60 minutes last year and was to represent the new model which would do away with ”traditional agents". Does ABC have an interest in his company? How can a guy with 6 "virtual employees" single handedly alter forever the "traditional" agents’ way of doing business on a comprehensible level? You know the one where agents actually show property?

Read my post on "traditional Agents" and the scam being propagated by "virtual agents" to differentiate themselves when the only difference is the service they provide (or lack thereof).

Drew & Christine Morgan, MorganHomes.com Belmont Real Estate

Belmont View Ordinance-Only a Vision?

Belmont (or beautiful mountain (beau mont) is one of the most unique and charming cities on the peninsula. It’s heavily forested hillsides and undulating hills make for a delightful backdrop against the busy peninsula transportation arteries.

Belmont offers impressive views of San Francisco and the open space around Sugarloaf Mountain, the San Francisco Bay, and on any clear day Mt. Tamalpias, Mt. Diablo and Mt. Hamilton.

Belmont’s attributes are many but its highly coveted views are among the top reason people choose to live in Belmont.

Belmont_old_3 The hills of Belmont weren’t always so heavily wooded as suggested by this rendering–published in “Heritage of the Wooded Hills”A Belmont History, by Ria Elena MacCrisken and available at the Belmont Historical Society. As Belmont neighborhoods developed tress were planted which forever changed the natural foliage into forested hillsides (one needs to look no further than the Watershed open space to see what Belmont’s hills probably looked like before it was populated).

Ironically, Belmont has no view or tree ordinance which regulates whether or not a tree can obstruct the view of a homeowner; one can’t build a structure to block a view but there’s nothing to regulate allowing a tree to grow unchecked into what once was someone’s impressive vista.

Many of the trees in Belmont which grow unattended such as eucalyptus are not indigenous to Belmont and in fact are not protected under Belmont’s existing tree ordinance–yet those are some of the most offensive trees in terms of obstructing views (and they’re pretty messy too).

When living in a society where our existence impacts others it’s essential to have ordinances to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public. We currently have ordinances to protect the quality of life and Belmont should seriously consider adding a view ordinance which will allow for the responsible ownership of trees.

Balancing the rights of a homeowner to maintain their view against that of a nearby property owner to plant and grow trees where they wish is difficult as property ownership rights are always held in high regard–as they should be. Like anything else though, views must be preserved and a balance must be struck between the property ownership rights of both parties.

Are trimming trees counterproductive to living green? Absolutely not. The International Society of Arboriculture not only recommends tree ordinances they go so far as to suggest how to structure one. Furthermore many adjacent towns which benefit from similar views already have such ordinances in place. Cities such as Tiburon and Berkeley, both where property values are substantially affected by their views, have adopted view ordinances to cope with urban tree growth and should serve as a guide to Belmont to act to preserve our declining views.

Disclaimer:

Drew & Christine Morgan are REALTORS/NOTARY PUBLIC in Belmont, CA. with more than 20 years experience in helping sellers and buyers in their community. They may be reached at (650) 508.1441 or emailed at info@morganhomes.com.

You can find them on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/Morganhomes and also find them on Twitter @ https://twitter.com/morganhomes

The information contained in this article is educational and intended for informational purposes only. It does not constitute real estate, tax or legal advice, nor does it substitute for advice specific to your situation. Always consult an appropriate professional familiar with your scenario.

The “Traditional” Broker Myth

The "Traditional" Broker Myth

The somewhat fledgling emergence in the real estate industry of on-line brokers would love for sellers to believe that "traditional" agent commissions are limited (some even state that on their web page). Commissions are negotiable and many "traditional" agents are offering very non-traditional commission structures-as in by the hour. And yes, there are some arrangements (as in when your home sells in one week) that you may feel your agent was overpaid-and you might be right. But most sellers hire their agent to get their home sold for the most money in the shortest period of time. And if the agent did that in a week one would think a seller would be pleased. The alternative would be to sell the home after a long period of time (probably for less) and inconvenience to the seller-ending with the same result-a sold home. What about when a seller overprices their home against the agent’s advice and it takes months to sell; is the agent over compensated then?

On-line brokers have their place in the market but remember you will be doing most of the work, not them.

It’s akin to a homeowner deciding to do a remodel. As a homeowner you have the right to act as your own general contractor; what you have to ask yourself is a) do you want to take that on (do you have the time and ability) and b) are you qualified-as in knowledgeable. You also have the right to hire the cheapest general contractor you can find. But why complain about more expensive ones when cheaper ones are available. Hire who you want-there are options.

Look around; ask for references and experiences from your friends. Determine what level of service you need, or want, and hire someone (or not) accordingly.

The information contained in this piece is educational and intended for informational purposes only.  It does not constitute Legal, Real Estate, or Accounting advice and is not specific to your situation, nor does it substitute for professional advice. 

The Worst Thing That I Ever Did in Real Estate.

The Worst Thing I Ever Did in Real Estate–Coming Clean…

Agents-ever "Just Want to Get Away?"

It rained that day, but that wasn’t why I was reluctant to show property-the 49ers were playing.

Being new to the business, I was determined to take my very first buyer out to see property regardless that my home team was playing and I had to forfeit my season pass seats; this was the first buyer I had the possibility of showing homes to and I was excited at the opportunities that awaited me; I was new. I was eager.

The year was 1991. The 49ers were coming off several recent Superbowl wins and remained the talk of the town. If you were a buyer out during a Sunday game-you were a serious buyer, and agents knew it.

The stores were quiet, the streets empty, and only the local pubs benefited from the excitement; nearby, a recent bride awaited anxiously in her new home for her husband’s return from the store; she was nervous at the prospect of entertaining his friends for the first time. All was well in America.

Most of the homes we visited were resale properties being hosted by reluctant agents playing the football game in the background-as if to satisfy house hunters who undoubtedly wished they already had a home in which to watch the game and host a party.

Entering a new development, we signed in at the main office-you know-the ones with carpet samples on the walls? Knowing I had to accompany my buyer, we strolled along the manicured gardens and walkways to the first open door.

There we were greeted by a gracious host who also had the game on for our enjoyment and offered us a beverage which we of course courteously declined. Strolling about the lower level of the home, we then began to wander upstairs. That’s when the host asked us who we were and I obliged by relinquishing only our first names.

Upon returning downstairs our gracious host asked us how we met Mike. I of course responded with "Who is Mike?" Mike, she said, is her husband who was due back from the store any minute and if we didn’t know Mike then why were we at their 49er party?

You can imagine my surprise to learn we had stumbled into one of the occupied homes which had apparently been sold smack in between other models for sale.

We moved on with our apologies and asked if we could return should we not find a suitable home that day.

It’s was everything I could do to keep a semblance of composure.

Care to share a story?