Things that make you go hmmm…

[briansd1]

[quote=SD Realtor]those parties have the choice to record or not record.

The assessors office will decide to assess the property at whatever valuation they feel is of fair value regardless of the recording.
[/quote]

That’s what I always said.

[quote=SD Realtor]
The sale of the home was not on the MLS, the sale will not be used as a comp by some appraiser.
[/quote]

It would depend on whether the appraiser feels that it’s a comp for neighboring properties or not. An appraiser may chose to exclude that property or not. There are not many properties like this one so the appraiser may have no choice to be include it in a report; or he may go out of area to find a comp.

[quote=SD Realtor]
What it sounds like to me is that it really is not yours or my business on this sale. Try to remember that the seller has every right to sell the home at whatever price they want to sell it at, to whoever they want to sell it at.[/quote]

Sales of land is everyone’s business because it affects us all.

Sellers can sell at whatever price they want, but the public is entitled to know the owner of record and the assessed value.

It’s important to have public scrutiny because it keeps people honest. If citizens couldn’t see the assessed value of land, then sweetheart deals could be worked out between public officials and landowners.

I see nothing wrong with discussing, or speculating upon the sales of properties around us. That is actually what an appraiser does. He looks at the records and determines value based on his own experience and judgments.

If people don’t like their real estate transactions discussed, they should not be in real estate.

[sdrealtor]

[quote=briansd1]I think that UCGAl pretty much nailed it.

We are entitled to know. That’s what the recording process is for.

The recording process protects the real estate market from fraud and it protects people who have claims to real estate by allowing them to publicly record their claims.

The trade off is that they give up some of their privacy. That’s just the way it goes.

People of wealth can use trusts, corporations, partnerships, etc.. to obfuscate the ownership. But if you follow the trail, you can find out who owns the property.

So, no, I don’t think it’s time to move along. It’s very legitimate for people interested in real estate to scrutinize every sale.

In the past, in early America, everyone knew everyone and knew who owned what.

The public recording was designed to provide public notice (like shouting in the middle of the town square with everyone assembled so that all citizens would be aware of a transaction).[/quote]

And I thought you said you were entitled to know. Silly me….

[sdrealtor]

[quote=briansd1]I think that UCGAl pretty much nailed it.

We are entitled to know. That’s what the recording process is for.

The recording process protects the real estate market from fraud and it protects people who have claims to real estate by allowing them to publicly record their claims.

The trade off is that they give up some of their privacy. That’s just the way it goes.

People of wealth can use trusts, corporations, partnerships, etc.. to obfuscate the ownership. But if you follow the trail, you can find out who owns the property.

So, no, I don’t think it’s time to move along. It’s very legitimate for people interested in real estate to scrutinize every sale.

In the past, in early America, everyone knew everyone and knew who owned what.

The public recording was designed to provide public notice (like shouting in the middle of the town square with everyone assembled so that all citizens would be aware of a transaction).[/quote]

And I thought you said you were entitled to know. Silly me….

[sdrealtor]

[quote=briansd1]I think that UCGAl pretty much nailed it.

We are entitled to know. That’s what the recording process is for.

The recording process protects the real estate market from fraud and it protects people who have claims to real estate by allowing them to publicly record their claims.

The trade off is that they give up some of their privacy. That’s just the way it goes.

People of wealth can use trusts, corporations, partnerships, etc.. to obfuscate the ownership. But if you follow the trail, you can find out who owns the property.

So, no, I don’t think it’s time to move along. It’s very legitimate for people interested in real estate to scrutinize every sale.

In the past, in early America, everyone knew everyone and knew who owned what.

The public recording was designed to provide public notice (like shouting in the middle of the town square with everyone assembled so that all citizens would be aware of a transaction).[/quote]

And I thought you said you were entitled to know. Silly me….

[sdrealtor]

[quote=briansd1]I think that UCGAl pretty much nailed it.

We are entitled to know. That’s what the recording process is for.

The recording process protects the real estate market from fraud and it protects people who have claims to real estate by allowing them to publicly record their claims.

The trade off is that they give up some of their privacy. That’s just the way it goes.

People of wealth can use trusts, corporations, partnerships, etc.. to obfuscate the ownership. But if you follow the trail, you can find out who owns the property.

So, no, I don’t think it’s time to move along. It’s very legitimate for people interested in real estate to scrutinize every sale.

In the past, in early America, everyone knew everyone and knew who owned what.

The public recording was designed to provide public notice (like shouting in the middle of the town square with everyone assembled so that all citizens would be aware of a transaction).[/quote]

And I thought you said you were entitled to know. Silly me….

[sdrealtor]

[quote=briansd1]I think that UCGAl pretty much nailed it.

We are entitled to know. That’s what the recording process is for.

The recording process protects the real estate market from fraud and it protects people who have claims to real estate by allowing them to publicly record their claims.

The trade off is that they give up some of their privacy. That’s just the way it goes.

People of wealth can use trusts, corporations, partnerships, etc.. to obfuscate the ownership. But if you follow the trail, you can find out who owns the property.

So, no, I don’t think it’s time to move along. It’s very legitimate for people interested in real estate to scrutinize every sale.

In the past, in early America, everyone knew everyone and knew who owned what.

The public recording was designed to provide public notice (like shouting in the middle of the town square with everyone assembled so that all citizens would be aware of a transaction).[/quote]

And I thought you said you were entitled to know. Silly me….

[briansd1]

Yes, we are entitled to know anything that is public record. It’s public because we are entitled to know.

Don’t want people to know, don’t record with the County Recorder. Simple.

Even if it’s not public, the information may still be available. In commercial real estate, there are services that interview agents and tenants and aggregate information with public records to add value.

There nothing wrong with asking and inquiring and getting information that you seek.

[briansd1]

Yes, we are entitled to know anything that is public record. It’s public because we are entitled to know.

Don’t want people to know, don’t record with the County Recorder. Simple.

Even if it’s not public, the information may still be available. In commercial real estate, there are services that interview agents and tenants and aggregate information with public records to add value.

There nothing wrong with asking and inquiring and getting information that you seek.

[briansd1]

Yes, we are entitled to know anything that is public record. It’s public because we are entitled to know.

Don’t want people to know, don’t record with the County Recorder. Simple.

Even if it’s not public, the information may still be available. In commercial real estate, there are services that interview agents and tenants and aggregate information with public records to add value.

There nothing wrong with asking and inquiring and getting information that you seek.

[briansd1]

Yes, we are entitled to know anything that is public record. It’s public because we are entitled to know.

Don’t want people to know, don’t record with the County Recorder. Simple.

Even if it’s not public, the information may still be available. In commercial real estate, there are services that interview agents and tenants and aggregate information with public records to add value.

There nothing wrong with asking and inquiring and getting information that you seek.

[briansd1]

Yes, we are entitled to know anything that is public record. It’s public because we are entitled to know.

Don’t want people to know, don’t record with the County Recorder. Simple.

Even if it’s not public, the information may still be available. In commercial real estate, there are services that interview agents and tenants and aggregate information with public records to add value.

There nothing wrong with asking and inquiring and getting information that you seek.

[sdrealtor]

Unless I misunderstood (and I dont think I did) you said we were entitled to know the details of the transaction which we arent. If I misunderstood, my apolgies.

FWIW, I agree with you on things more often than not. Just not on this one.

[sdrealtor]

Unless I misunderstood (and I dont think I did) you said we were entitled to know the details of the transaction which we arent. If I misunderstood, my apolgies.

FWIW, I agree with you on things more often than not. Just not on this one.

[sdrealtor]

Unless I misunderstood (and I dont think I did) you said we were entitled to know the details of the transaction which we arent. If I misunderstood, my apolgies.

FWIW, I agree with you on things more often than not. Just not on this one.

[sdrealtor]

Unless I misunderstood (and I dont think I did) you said we were entitled to know the details of the transaction which we arent. If I misunderstood, my apolgies.

FWIW, I agree with you on things more often than not. Just not on this one.

[Author]

Posts