07-21-2009, 07:45 PM
Sorry, I missed the rule about saying "hello' in a first post. "Hi".
1. An insinuation was made that somehow my comments on the Star Bulletin (SB) article were solely made due to my being dissatisfied that someone left my company. This is untrue, and I perceived this as an attack on me; thus my comment to set the record straight. Mr. Dirgo has exceptional knowledge of the Puna area, and has been one of the best sources for information regarding real estate and other issues in Puna, both on this forum and while he was attached to my company; many folks, including myself, have been rewarded by his efforts in this regard. However, to attempt to deflect / minimize criticism of his position on the Fannie Mae issue as merely a case of sour grapes due to his departure is ridiculous, and so I made it clear that there are issues that exist between he & I, yet unrelated to a simple flight to greener pastures.
2. Another comment was made that agreed with the above comment and proposed that I should be happy for someone's accomplishments. Sorry, but circumstances exist in this particular situation that make such a gesture impossible for me. Again, I felt I should set the record straight; John is well aware of the issue, and chose to negate it with his false claim that Fannie (and the reporter) corroborates his statement that Fannie has made some radical departure from their previous stance. Not true.
3. Aaron has now confirmed that the SB reporter didn't accurately report the situation with Fannie Mae: the reality is that they never backed loans in 1 & 2, yet the inflammatory article, and Mr. Dirgo, make it seem as though there is some radical policy change via a "Lava Loan Meltdown" when it is simply not true. Nothing has changed, there is no discrimination; Fannie continues to not back loans there, and to the best of my knowledge, most, if not all, of the conventional financing in zones 1 & 2 still continues to be readily available to those that qualify. This is exactly, and only, what I posed as contradictory to Mr. Dirgo's statements in the article, yet he (and others) choose to make it appear as though some vendetta is at the core of my comments. Simply, again, not true. Mr. Rabi correctly points out the fact that Fannie's long-term policy was obviously indeed in existence in some written form; huge organizations such as this don't dictate such succinct policy purely by word-of-mouth.
4. The folks that own property in zones 1 & 2 have been severely damaged by this unwarranted pot-stirring. There are those that will take the SB article (which contains direct quotes from members of this forum) at face value. Property values and personal wealth will decline because of this, yet somehow this reality escapes some members of this forum.
Here's an email I received today from a buyer (who had been previously interested in land in Nanawale) from Oahu today:
"My fiancée and I are still very interested in purchasing a land in the Big Island. I was wondering if you would be able to provide any active listing’s that are at least in the lava zone 3 area. I would be paying cash for the property, but I want to make sure that I can get future financing if needed and with recent guideline changes with Fannie Mae they will no longer lend on lava zones 1 or 2.
Thanks for you help!"
And of course, now I have to explain that the article wasn't accurately reported...and contained inaccurate statements by member(s) of this forum...yet in the end this buyer will end up rejecting all properties in Zones 1 & 2...
I am completely uninterested in "getting even", worrying about "ego", or "making a sale". Instead, my concern is that folks in Puna wake up to the fact that shining a light on such a non-event is equivalent to shooting themselves in the foot. I have been a registered member of this forum for quite some time, but chose to make my first comment at this time strictly due to the inaccurate statements in the SB article.
Those that can't face this continue on at their (or their neighbor's) peril.
1. An insinuation was made that somehow my comments on the Star Bulletin (SB) article were solely made due to my being dissatisfied that someone left my company. This is untrue, and I perceived this as an attack on me; thus my comment to set the record straight. Mr. Dirgo has exceptional knowledge of the Puna area, and has been one of the best sources for information regarding real estate and other issues in Puna, both on this forum and while he was attached to my company; many folks, including myself, have been rewarded by his efforts in this regard. However, to attempt to deflect / minimize criticism of his position on the Fannie Mae issue as merely a case of sour grapes due to his departure is ridiculous, and so I made it clear that there are issues that exist between he & I, yet unrelated to a simple flight to greener pastures.
2. Another comment was made that agreed with the above comment and proposed that I should be happy for someone's accomplishments. Sorry, but circumstances exist in this particular situation that make such a gesture impossible for me. Again, I felt I should set the record straight; John is well aware of the issue, and chose to negate it with his false claim that Fannie (and the reporter) corroborates his statement that Fannie has made some radical departure from their previous stance. Not true.
3. Aaron has now confirmed that the SB reporter didn't accurately report the situation with Fannie Mae: the reality is that they never backed loans in 1 & 2, yet the inflammatory article, and Mr. Dirgo, make it seem as though there is some radical policy change via a "Lava Loan Meltdown" when it is simply not true. Nothing has changed, there is no discrimination; Fannie continues to not back loans there, and to the best of my knowledge, most, if not all, of the conventional financing in zones 1 & 2 still continues to be readily available to those that qualify. This is exactly, and only, what I posed as contradictory to Mr. Dirgo's statements in the article, yet he (and others) choose to make it appear as though some vendetta is at the core of my comments. Simply, again, not true. Mr. Rabi correctly points out the fact that Fannie's long-term policy was obviously indeed in existence in some written form; huge organizations such as this don't dictate such succinct policy purely by word-of-mouth.
4. The folks that own property in zones 1 & 2 have been severely damaged by this unwarranted pot-stirring. There are those that will take the SB article (which contains direct quotes from members of this forum) at face value. Property values and personal wealth will decline because of this, yet somehow this reality escapes some members of this forum.
Here's an email I received today from a buyer (who had been previously interested in land in Nanawale) from Oahu today:
"My fiancée and I are still very interested in purchasing a land in the Big Island. I was wondering if you would be able to provide any active listing’s that are at least in the lava zone 3 area. I would be paying cash for the property, but I want to make sure that I can get future financing if needed and with recent guideline changes with Fannie Mae they will no longer lend on lava zones 1 or 2.
Thanks for you help!"
And of course, now I have to explain that the article wasn't accurately reported...and contained inaccurate statements by member(s) of this forum...yet in the end this buyer will end up rejecting all properties in Zones 1 & 2...
I am completely uninterested in "getting even", worrying about "ego", or "making a sale". Instead, my concern is that folks in Puna wake up to the fact that shining a light on such a non-event is equivalent to shooting themselves in the foot. I have been a registered member of this forum for quite some time, but chose to make my first comment at this time strictly due to the inaccurate statements in the SB article.
Those that can't face this continue on at their (or their neighbor's) peril.