02-22-2012, 09:53 AM
quote:Ok, you got me confused. You got screwed by a company, want extend protections to homeowners? Can you please cite the portions of this proposed law that addresses those issues? My last read of the bill strictly abridged the rights of the homeowner to the benefit of some licensed individuals.
Originally posted by jackson
David, I appreciate your point, but I think you are missing something. Protections also need to extend to homeowners. There alreay is a law regardng vacation rental companies needing a brokers license but it is not enforced. In my case, I am still owed a great deal of money from a company still in business. I was never paid on time and finally realized that they were using my money to finance their other operations. My money was supposed to be placed in a trust account but because they know they can flaunt the law, they do. To me, I am being failed by state and county government. It's not only about the tourists, but also about homeowners who are in legal jeopardy without realizing it.
There is absolutely no relation to this bill and FSBO. There is no relation whatsoever. It's about protecting the state's image to the worldwide tourist business. This is not government being intrusive, but geovernment doing its job. Now they need to enforce HR467
No relation in THIS bill to FSBO except extending the reach of the licensed real estate community at the expense of the rights of the property owner. Extension to FSBO and owner rentals is just a future step. Don't think so? Provide me a couple of links with licensed RE extolling the virtues of owner performed activity that also comes under their purview. My guess is you won't because you can't.
David
Ninole Resident
Please visit vacation.ninolehawaii.com
Ninole Resident