Let's Increase Drilling and the Supply of US Domestic Oil and Get Price at the Pump Down

Business people must recognize that we have a serious problem in the US with the price of oil and gas at the pump.

The Democrats in US Congress are keeping us from exploring and drilling for domestic oil. And they are helping to limit our domestic supply.

The U.S. House and its appropriations committee (lead by Democrats) refused during the week of June 11, 2008, to lift the ban on oil exploration on the outer continental shelf (at least 50 miles from American shores).

We need to get more domestic oil. We need to increase US oil production and get price at the gas pump down. Drilling for oil is a way to accomplish that.

Let's tap our own US resources for oil. Otherwise, the international price of oil will rise to $250 a barrel, and we will be paying more than $10 a gallon at the pump.

Posted by Harrison K. Long, Explore Properties Group, Coldwell Banker Previews

U.S. Congress Should Work To Improve Our Domestic Oil Supply & Get Decreased Prices at the Gas Pump

This gasoline price at the PUMP CRUNCH is rough for all of us. Supply has not kept pace with demand, and so prices rise.

Many of steps taken in the U.S. for reduction of demand are being negated by increased demands for oil in foreign countries including India and China.

The best step we can take to decrease prices is to INCREASE SUPPLIES of oil here in the U.S.

U.S. Congress and Senate (both controlled by Democrats) has instead proposed legislation that would allow the U.S. to sue OPEC for suppressing oil production.

What?

We criticize other countries for curbing their oil production, and at the same time close off areas here in the U.S. known to have oil reserves and natural gas.

China is now working with Cuba to drill for oil 60 miles off the coast of Florida.

Meanwhile our Congress does nothing to increase our production and explore other U.S. oil resources.

On June 11, 2008, the U.S. Senate appropriations committee (controlled by Democrats) refused to consider a bill to allow exploration and drilling for oil by U.S. companies in international waters. Does that make sense?

We have advanced exploration technology available to allow development of oil in an environmentally-sensitive way while protecting surrounding habitats and wildlife.

Our U.S. Congress waits.

It is estimated that exploring a mere 2,000 acres of frozen tundra in the 1.5 million acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) could produce 10.4 billion barrels of oil. It is also estimated that offshore drilling would yield 86 billion barrels of oil and large quantities of natural gas.

In the long term, we must find and develop alternative energy sources here in the U.S. and be less dependent on oil.

During the short-term, developing our own domestic sources of oil should take priority.

Our U.S. Congress with Republicans and Democrats working together should legislate for real solutions to increasE oil production, provide more oil for us and get gasoline prices down at the pump.

Posted by Harrison K. Long, Explore Properties Group, June 11, 2008
Source: Ken Calvert, U.S. Congress Representative, 44th District from California

What Does The NAR v. DOJ Case Settlement Mean?

The U.S. Lawsuit vs. the National Association of Realtors Online Listing Policy Is Being Settled as of May 27, 2008, which calls for the adoption of a new online listings policy.

Source: settlement proposal (United States v. National Association of Realtors, May 27, 2008)

The lawsuit had challenged the NAR policies governing the online sharing and display of property listings, including Virtual Office Web site (VOW) and Internet Listings Display (ILD) policies.

The biggest win for NAR was the DOJ's concession that MLS members must be actively engaged in real estate transactions, which is defined broadly include brokers who make an effort to be engaged in real estate transactions, but fail to close any deals over an extended period of time.
Another NAR win is a registration requirement that will restrict access to VOWs and enable brokers to keep records of VOW-registered e-mail addresses. Those must be confirmed before the registrant can access the VOW.
Other data-sharing policies for multiple listing services and participants, known as Internet Data Exchange (IDX) policies, were not challenged in the lawsuit and are not affected by the proposed settlement.

The proposed settlement provides that the display of listing information on a VOW site does not require separate permission from the participant whose listings will be available on the VOW. However, it does provide that individual sellers can choose to block information about their home from display on the Internet.

The proposed settlement is not yet final, will be published in the Federal Register and is subject to a 60-day comment period and a 30-day review by a judge. NAR must adopt the modified VOW policy within five business days of the final judgment on the settlement agreement.

Posted by Harrison K. Long, Explore Properties Group, May 28, 2008
Source: settlement proposal (United States v. National Association of Realtors, May 27, 2008)

U.S. Lawsuit vs. National Association of Realtors Online Listing Policy Is Being Settled (5-27-08)

The U.S. antitrust lawsuit filed against the National Association of Realtors in 2005 has reached a proposed settlement, May 27, 2008, that calls for the adoption of a new online listings policy.

The lawsuit had challenged the NAR policies governing the online sharing and display of property listings, including Virtual Office Web site (VOW) and Internet Listings Display (ILD) policies.

Other data-sharing policies for multiple listing services and participants, known as Internet Data Exchange (IDX) policies, were not challenged in the lawsuit and are not affected by the proposed settlement.

The Justice Department had alleged that NAR's policies could restrict competition and consumer choice in real estate services, that those policies would discourage low-cost services.

The DOJ had challenged the NAR requirement that multiple listing services permit brokers to selectively withhold property listings from companies that operate VOW-based search sites that feature a collection of property listings from MLS members.

The proposed settlement provides that the display of listing information on a VOW site does not require separate permission from the participant whose listings will be available on the VOW. However, it does provide that individual sellers can choose to block information about their home from display on the Internet.

The DOJ said that the MLSs that had adopted policies in violation of the settlement proposal must rescind those rules. The DOJ reports that under the new policy, brokers participating in a NAR-affiliated MLS will not be permitted to withhold their listings from brokers who serve their customers through virtual office Web sites.

Another rule challenged by Justice Department related to restrictions in using VOW sites as a source of referral fees from other brokers. The proposed settlement provides that an MLS may not prohibit, restrict, or impede a participant from referring registrants to any person or from obtaining a fee for such referral.

The NAR position is that all members of MLS must be actively engaged in the act of real estate buying and selling, which prevents MLS members from joining an MLS specifically to "scrape" property listings from other members.

The proposed settlement is not yet final. It will be published in the Federal Register and is subject to a 60-day comment period and a 30-day review by a judge. NAR must adopt the modified VOW policy within five business days of the final judgment on the settlement agreement.

Posted by Harrison K. Long, Explore Properties Group, May 28, 2008
Source: settlement proposal (United States v. National Association of Realtors, May 27, 2008)

Property Owners & Buyers Should Oppose CA State-mandated Energy Audits At Time Of Sale

Property Owners, Sellers, Buyers, and Realtors, should fight against any proposed California state-mandated audit law requiring time-of-sale energy efficiency audits.

CA Assembly bill 2678 was introduced in Feb. 2008, has been passed out of committee. This bill would require California Energy Commission to develop requirements for time-of-sale energy efficiency audits for residential and commercial buildings.

If this passes, owners will be required to submit for state audits and then be required to meet new retrofit standards.

If passed, this bill will add time to the home and commercial building selling process. This will also add costs for sellers, which would eventually be born by the buyers and slow the market down even further.

We and the California Association of Realtors strongly oppose this legislation.

This bill would would impose requirements at time of sale, and only at time of sale. If you are not selling your home, this would not require you to do anything.

This bill is aimed at the property owners who will be selling, is against the real estate industry as a whole, and should be opposed.

Posted by Harrison K. Long, Explore Properties Group, May 15, 2008
Source: Orange County Register, May 10, 2008