Monthly Archives: April 2008

Why not try homesteading instead?

7 Replies

Courtesy of Zillow’s blog, we hear about the economically depressed city of Youngstown, OH razing thinly populated neighborhoods in order to save on public services costs to the area. There are lots of reasons to do this — abandoned homes can become a base for crime, drugs, and other naughty activities that civilized society frowns upon. And I’m not opposed to the “Honey, I Shrank the City” movement.

On the other hand… I’m just wondering…

Why not try homesteading?

And I don’t mean the modern definition of the term that refers to bunch of neo-hippies practicing some “back to earth” sustainable living type stuff. I mean the original, 1862 version of the word homesteading.

The 1862 Homestead Act required that the claimant “improve” the land he was claiming, and stay there for five years. At the end of that period, the land was his free and clear.

A homesteader had only to be the head of a household and at least 21 years of age to claim a 160 acre parcel of land. Settlers from all walks of life including newly arrived immigrants, farmers without land of their own from the East, single women and former slaves came to meet the challenge of “proving up” and keeping this “free land”. Each homesteader had to live on the land, build a home, make improvements and farm for 5 years before they were eligible to “prove up”. A total filing fee of $18 was the only money required, but sacrifice and hard work exacted a different price from the hopeful settlers.

This was an amazing chapter in the history of the United States. Former slaves, freed by the Civil War, could become landowners. New immigrants, women, the poor — all had a real shot at making a life for themselves and achieving the dream of landownership.

Why not again today?

Suppose Youngstown were to simply condemn the houses, then hand out title to any U.S. citizen who claimed a property, with some conditions, similar to the one in the 1862 law.

  • You must stay in the residence for at least five years.
  • During your stay, you must maintain the house in reasonable condition and not engage in any illegal activities in the house.
  • It must be your primary residence for those five years.
  • You must pay all property taxes and government fees associated with homeownership, such as for trash removal, water and sewage, etc.

At the end of five years, title to the house belongs to you free and clear.

If there is a homelessness problem in this country, rather than continuing to invest in public housing, why not encourage (in the most radical way possible) private homeownership for the poor?  Imagine a poor family suddenly having title to their own house after five years.  What can they do with that?  If the economy turns around because of an influx of people, businesses start up again, jobs start to get created, and the value of the property becomes something substantial… those people might have a real nest egg for retirement, or use the equity in the house to start a business or go to college or whatever else they want.

And Youngstown wouldn’t just have a reduced cost for services, but a higher tax base as well.

Rather than embracing defeat and shrinkage, a city faced with the blight of mass foreclosures can actually revitalize their entire economic base simply by giving away abandoned houses.  The “owners” are not likely to be complaining, seeing as how the alternative is to have the property razed and turned into a public park or some such.  After Kelo, I can’t see how this sort of program would not pass muster, especially as it pertains to abandoned homes in blighted areas.

What am I missing here?

-rsh

If Yer Gonna Raise the Bar, Then Raise the Whole Saloon

12 Replies

Interestingly enough, just after I wrote about the problem of too many real estate agents overall, I found a post by Dave Phillips over at Bloodhound Blog called “Raising the Bar or Bellying Up to It“. It’s insightful and hilarious. Recommended reading for sure.

I’m thinking, what’s all this Sam Adams reference? This is no time for mere beer. Move over, Sam, and meet my friend Jose Cuervo. As Tracy Byrd might sing:

Then after Three rounds with Jose Cuervo
I let her lead me out on the floor
And after Four rounds with Jose Cuervo
I was showing off moves never seen before

Well, round five or round six
I forgot what I came to forget
After Round seven, Or was it eight?
I bought a round for the whole dang place

Beer ain’t gonna do it when you’re looking to “beat an old memory”; and half-measures won’t cut it when you’re looking to change fundamental infrastructure of the entire industry. As Charles Woodall mentioned in the comments to my previous post, it takes 15 times the education to get a license to cut someone’s hair than it does to get a real estate license in Alabama. o.0

In any event, Dave brings up some great points and questions, ultimately concluding that this won’t be easy. The two common approaches — education and disclosure — won’t work, in his view, because governments are constantly raising the bar themselves, making the REALTOR designation sans meaningful differentiation from the vast hordes of unwashed real estate agents.

So, what is the solution? Do we think up a whole bunch of things that REALTORS® have to do or disclose that a common licensee does not? Maybe we could require REALTORS® to disclose that the neighbor will throw potatoes at you if you purchase this home? Or maybe we require REALTORS® to disclose all the future development plans within a mile of the property. (E&O Insurance companies will love that one.)

Maybe more disclosure is not a good idea. “Another Sam, please.”

Time for round one with Jose Cuervo.

If I were advising NAR, which I am not except in that “free advice is worth what you paid for it” sorta way, here’s what I might suggest: require that a REALTOR disclose everything that he would find material and pertinent if he himself were the buyer in the transaction.

In other words, the standard of behavior for the REALTOR should reflect the true meaning of the term “professional”: someone who is following a profession or a calling. This is a meaning that is continuously lost over time. There is a deep sense among the traditional professions of Divinity, Law, and Medicine that a professional works not for oneself, or even for one’s client, but for society as a whole. As a lawyer, I am an “officer of the court”. If I were practicing law, I would have responsibilities that extend beyond myself and beyond my clients to the entire judicial system, and to the polity and society as a whole. For example, no matter how much it would benefit my client, I am not to lie in a judicial proceeding or be party to a lie being told with my knowledge. The penalty for violating this is pretty severe — usually the loss of the license to practice law.

The reason why society (should) give me power and honor and prestige as a lawyer is directly related to the fact that in some real significant way, I am putting society’s interests ahead of my own. Granted, in today’s America, this sense of obligation to society as a whole has been lost in the legal profession for the most part, with idiots mouthing ‘zealous advocacy’ as the excuse for gaming the system and filing all manner of frivolous lawsuits and so on. But at the heart of the legal profession is the idea that we work for society, not for our particular client.

Same thing with a medical doctor. Even if she pays her bills with money from her own patients, she isn’t supposed to walk by an injured stranger, or turn away the sick. She owes a moral duty (if not a legal one) to society to heal the sick and help the injured. Because she puts society’s interests first, society in turn grants her status, power, and (sometimes) wealth.

If a REALTOR means anything at all, it has to mean a true professional real estate agent. That means understanding that they owe some sort of duty to society as a whole.

It does not benefit society for a REALTOR to refuse to disclose facts that he himself would find pertinent if he were the buyer of the property. That may benefit the seller, and therefore the REALTOR who is making money on commissions, but society as a whole is actually hurt by such behavior. It does not benefit society for a REALTOR to agree to represent a property at a price that he himself, in his professional expert opinion, believes to be seriously overpriced in the hopes that he can find some fool willing to overpay. When REALTORS complain that their seller clients simply are being stubborn and won’t listen to reason, I confess very little sympathy. As a professional, you are supposed to walk away and let the unscrupulous, uneducated, unprofessional merely-licensed agents deal with that trash.

So if all future development plans within a 5 mile radius of the house would be relevant to a buyer, then the REALTOR should disclose the information. If his seller client will not agree to disclose, then REALTOR should walk away and recuse himself from representing such a seller.

There is no other way. You can’t hold yourself to the highest standard of ethics and behavior while continually representing clients who are not. A client willing to cheat a buyer (morally, ethically, if not legally) to make a few bucks is not a client that the REALTOR should be representing.

How about education? We could require REALTORS® to take more education than a standard licensee. In Virginia, at the request of the REALTOR® organization, the General Assembly just increased the required hours of continuing education for all licensees to 16 hours and brokers to 24 last year. Hmm. Sounds like some more of that rising tide thing again. Man, all these Sam Adams and talk of rising tides gives me a strange urge to toss a box of tea in the harbor.

“Hey, beer me.”

Round two with Jose Cuervo.

16 hours to 24 hours of Continuing Ed? That may or may not be all that impressive, but how about NAR start with this:

To become a REALTOR, you must be a four-year college graduate, have an MBA or equivalent, and have completed a two-year program in Real Estate at a NAR-accredited institution. You must have worked for a minimum of two years as a real estate professional in a REALTOR-designated broker’s office. In addition, you must pass a NAR Professional Board Exam every two years covering topics in Real Estate Law, Finance, Property Valuation, Economics, Data Analysis, and Ethics.

That might put a bit of a crimp on that 1.3 million REALTOR number, wouldn’t it?

Sure, as David points out, if some state licensing agency makes the standard for all licenses to be the same as the above, a rising tide would lift all boat… except that a stringent requirement like this one would exponentially reduce the number of people applying for a real estate license in the first place.

When reasonable folks talk about increasing education requirements, I’m sure they don’t mean jump to extremes like this. Well, I’ve gone a few rounds with Jose Cuervo, and feel no compunction to be reasonable. Rather, let me ask, Why not? Why not lift not just the bar, but the whole damn saloon? Why not make it such that only the finest, the most dedicated, the most professional, the most ethical, and the most passionate of those who want to help people fulfill their dreams of homeownership make it through?

Yeah, I know why not: money. I’m not so naive as to believe this will be easy or even desirable to many who are already in the industry. I agree on the degree of difficulty being somewhere north of a quadruple salchow while wearing combat boots. But I merely point out that things can be done, if the will to do them exists.

And I do agree, in the last analysis, with David on a couple of concrete ideas:

Actively police REALTORS® for violations of the Code, license law, bad business practices and bad service. Bust’em and kick out the bad ones.

This is not going to be easy. Is it worth the effort? Probably. Will it get done? Probably not. Is it time for me to tell Sam goodnight? Goodnight Sam.

Enforcement is an absolute must. Lawyers are in our sorry state as a profession because State Bars have become so lax in enforcing its own laws, and judges have become part and parcel of the lawyer interest group. Self-interest and greed almost always takes over any powerful organization. But with proper enforcement, perhaps that fate was not unavoidable. Upholding the notion of the practice of law (or the practice of real estate) as a societal good, as an honor and a calling, instead of just a way to make a buck or two is critical to rediscovering the soul of what it means to be a professional.

And yes, this is not going to be easy. It probably won’t get done. It is worth the effort. And it’s round three with Jose Cuervo, and being a lightweight alcoholically speaking, it’s time for me and Jose to part ways.

Good night, Jose.

-rsh

A Question of Canaan

8 Replies

Moses

Marc Davison recently issued what I consider to be an important challenge, sort of tucked away into the dictum of his post called “Exodus from the bondage of 1.0 tradition“:

Like catcalls from construction workers to pedestrians, false bravado, come-ons and innuendo continue to adorn broker websites. They stand as a gripping example of how out of touch brokers are with the times.

It’s getting old.
It makes no sense anymore.
And it’s not what real estate is really about.

Marc then goes on to describe Chase Nation whose website is in dire need of a redesign, and a new search interface. (As an aside, Marc might direct Chase Nation to this post about not mixing Web 1.0 with Web 2.0; that search UI is from like… 1996?)

But that isn’t the important challenge. The important challenge/question is the last sentence quoted: “And it’s not what real estate is really about.”

So since Marc raised the issue of Exodus, I raise the question of Canaan. It’s one thing to leave Pharaoh’s bondage — where is it that Moses 2.0 is leading the community? If the realtor’s obsession with listings, properties, client testimonials, and ‘dream homes’ is not what real estate is really about… then what is real estate really about?

I’m thinking through this question as well, but I have not the vision that Marc has of utterly repudiating the current paradigm of ‘what real estate is really about’. My thinking is fairly limited at the end of the day to changing the way that real estate professionals behave, bringing new thinking to the methodology and techniques of marketing, and applying lessons from other industries to this one. But ultimately, real estate is about matching a buyer to a property to the satisfaction of all involved parties. Nothing more, nothing less.

But then, I’m no Moses, but a mere scribbler.

-rsh

You Go Boy!

8 Replies

I’m not entirely sure why I feel this way, but reading Matthew Rathburn just tee off on a couple of people who emailed him unsolicited ‘advice’ was… just refreshing in so many ways. I can’t help the title of this post. :) I urge you to go read the whole thing. It’s insightful and just plain old fun.

He does raise some really, really key challenges, however facing the brokerage industry:

Why do consumers think that they can beat up on agents?

The answers are simple. Agents have been catered to for far too long. Pre-licensing educational levels are too low, continuing education is a joke all most everywhere in the country and many Brokers will accept anyone with a license, regardless of capabilities. This is a very litigious industry and agents are handing their clients lawsuits, because they don’t know what they are doing. They begrudge having to take any training, even if it’s designed to save their own butts and to provide better service to their clients. I also will add that the education providers MUST increase their quality, so that agents will actually be educated in the courses being offered.

Clients are getting the information that agents have been controlling for a long time. You’re not the keep of the data, which is why many consumers came to you in the first place. For too many years agents access to controlled data was their only identity and customer service went by the way side. Agents need to improve their consumer advocacy and quality of service to show that this very complicated transaction is best handled by trained and capable hands – otherwise the agent should just turn in their license. For much of the country the days of going into floor duty time and stumbling on a commission are over.

The agents have failed to meet the challenge of angry consumers, like the one mentioned above, because they don’t know their own market place well enough; even though the information is readily available to them. Agents are taking overpriced and unsalable listings and not saying “no, you can’t reasonably sale for this price and in this market.” Instead, the listing is taken without disclosing the reality to the Seller and being “honest” because we are trying to save the seller’s feelings and/or because the agent simply doesn’t know the market.

All of these issues contribute to the lack of perceived “honesty” from the agent. It’s hurting the industry. Better education and a professional frankness with the consumer will go along way to repairing the perceptions held by some consumers. Industry Professionals should not be afraid or ashamed to tell a buyer or seller that their expectations are unreasonable and not care if that consumer finds another agent. That other agent won’t be able to help them either.

These are things I’ve been feeling personally for quite some time, and seeing as how I’m not a Realtor or a real estate agent or a broker, I think I can speak as the voice of the Consumer to some extent. But I am a lawyer, and have worked extensively in professional services (marketing agency work) and have some ideas on what constitutes professional services in the first place.

Real estate agents and lawyers share contempt by the public. Why do consumers think that they can beat up on lawyers?

This is not at all unusual, nor is it particularly cruel, as far as lawyer jokes go. Why do consumers feel that they can have such hatred for a profession?

One reason is that there are too many lawyers.

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor is said to have quipped: “There is no shortage of lawyers in Washington, DC. In fact, there may be more lawyers than people.”

And yet, when a man actually gets into a situation where he needs a lawyer, all of the hatred and contempt simply melt away, and he is divulging all sorts of personal information to the lawyer, paying enormous fees, and feeling grateful when the lawyer helps him out of a jam. This all while he maintains the low opinions of lawyers as a whole:

Now consider that at least, to become a lawyer, you have to first complete some sort of a college education with grades good enough to get admitted to law school. You also have to take the LSAT’s. Then you have to attend some sort of law school for approximately three years, the tuition to which is not exactly cheap (my alma mater is some $40K a year), and pass the Bar in the jurisdiction where you want to practice. Studying for the Bar Exam is a months-long process that I would not wish upon my worst enemy, and the exam itself is a multiple day grind of frustration and anxiety.

Even with those barriers to entry, there are apparently one million lawyers in the United States. Yours truly is one of them.

Lawyers are accused of all manner of unethical activities, from incompetence to sleazy marketing to defending the indefensible to rapacious greed. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it? At the same time, most of the lawyers I know personally (friends from school, etc.) are some of the straightest arrow squares out there, who wouldn’t drive over 55 MPH because that would be breaking the law. They are some of the most honorable, upstanding citizens of this Republic, oftentimes working extraordinarily long hours in an effort to see justice done.

In my ever-so-humble opinion, both industries suffer from the same problem: too many practitioners.

On matter how high your standards on paper, to have a million practitioners, you have to compromise them. Professional Ethics for an attorney is an amazing thing… on paper, and in theory. In real life, lawyers routinely violate canons of professional ethics left, right and center, and think nothing of it. Same with Realtors. Part of the problem is that competition is so fierce that lawyers (and Realtors) don’t want to turn paying clients away. Any opportunity for revenue is something that has to be grabbed, ethics be damned.

The solution to the problem is to reduce supply of real estate agents, whether through regulation or voluntary hiring standards. Not that it works all that well, but the legal profession does have mechanisms for ridding itself of bad attorneys: disbarment. What exists in real estate?

If there were only 100,000 lawyers in the United States, such that the public isn’t treated to the spectacle of lawyers agreeing to take on ridiculous cases just to earn a fee, the perception of the legal profession would change significantly. If becoming a lawyer were significantly more difficult — fewer accredited law schools, or higher requirements on the Bar Exam, or whatever — I do think that the public would perceive them in a much more positive light. I happen to know that lawyers in Korea, for example, enjoy a sumptuous reputation — word is, their Bar Exam passage rate is 10%.

Neither the legal industry nor the real estate industry will change towards a regulated system of limiting the number of people who can claim to be an attorney or a realtor. There’s too much money being made by ambulance chasers on the one hand and the sleazy, know-nothing agents on the other.

But in that environment, an opportunity does exist for the elite firms to separate themselves.

There is a fairly clear separation in the legal industry between those who practice so-called “gutter law” and those who practice at the high-end: typically corporate law, white collar criminal defense, and the like. David Boies may be thought of as many things, but sleazy isn’t one of them. Cravath, Swaine & Moore is nothing at all like these guys.

This is what does not exist in real estate: firms whose reputation for quality is beyond reproach, and who routinely turn down clients as being below their own standards. Firms who have invested in their brand, and enforces their brand ideals throughout the organization, with no exceptions and no excuses. Hiring practices at the top law firms are nothing whatsoever like hiring practices even at top real estate companies — in large part because the compensation structure is so different.

I think at least this level of separation can be achieved in real estate. It won’t be easy, and it won’t be quick, but it can be done. Venerable firms with decades of tradition and reputation can and should start to really separate themselves from their peers not through fancy websites but through quality of their professionals. If the regulations won’t enforce higher educational standards and professional education, then the firm should, by routinely firing agents who do not meet their standards (or refusing to hire them in the first place).

Better education and frank honesty will go a long way towards repairing consumer perceptions of real estate agents. But they alone can’t get it done. Those have to be combined with a more stringent set of standards for enforcement and professional standards by the industry and its participants themselves. And those things in turn have to generate enough revenues to allow the firms that have taken the ‘high road’ to turn down clients, turn down unrealistic sellers, and admonish irresponsible buyers, without having to worry about staying in business.

-rsh

Wisdom of David Ogilvy

Leave a reply

I just found this quote attributed to David Ogilvy, in his book Confessions of an Advertising Man:

People do not buy from bad-mannered liars.

Well, not twice, anyhow.

Considering that David Ogilvy is sometimes called the Father of Advertising, one might do worse than think about his statement.

For some reason, I feel like all of my thousands of words on Cluetrain marketing and so forth just got summed up in those eight words.

-rsh

Love in a Time of Cholera

2 Replies

Depending on who you ask, we are either headed for a recession or in one already. There seems to be some sort of a political angle to the whole question of recession, so who knows what the truth is in an election year? What everyone seems to agree on is that we’re certainly not in boom times.

Branding in a recession is something of an arcane art. How, exactly, do you continue to invest in something whose ROI you probably can’t prove at a time when your sales are looking dicey at best? Why would you do it?

Barry Silverstein has some thoughts on branding in a recession that people in real estate might want to check out and think about:

In a recent brandchannel debate, some readers weighed in with observations that generally align with experienced brand marketing practitioners. One reader said: “There is an opportunity here for all branding strategists, advocates of positioning and marketers to lead and guide by example. … branding carries those companies and products through even in the bad times…” Another wrote: “I agree with Alessandro Buffoni: a recession will force many companies to communicate about (or to find) their brand soul.”

A third reader summed it up this way: “Beyond quality and sheer market weight, brands must be ever more relevant, trustworthy and flexible. They must constantly be in tune with consumers’ values, evolving needs and lifestyles…”

A brand marketing paradox is that marketing expenditures are often slashed in recessionary times, so brands risk becoming less visible. This is not the best strategy. Harvard Business School professor John Quelch, writing in The Financial Times of London, says: “Instead of cutting the market research budget, you need to know more than ever how consumers are redefining value and responding to the recession.” Quelch also points out: “It is well documented that brands that increase advertising during a recession, when competitors are cutting back, can improve market share and return on investment at lower cost than during good economic times.”

How would this apply to real estate?

This is the industry where the recession started. One might even say that the recession (if there is one) was caused by real estate.  What should real estate companies think about and do in these hard times?

First, there is a real question as to whether the majority of real estate brands had a “brand soul” to begin with prior to the recession. Seems to me that for years now, the major real estate brands were completely focused on the property or the transaction from a branding standpoint.

Yes, Coldwell Banker had the “Your Perfect Partner” campaign for years, and Century 21 ran a bunch of ads depicting the human-service element of their agents.  Do the consumers really remember any of that?  Do they look at a Coldwell Banker yard sign and associate it with partnership or any actual emotional values?  I highly doubt it.  For the most part, real estate brands have been about homes, listings, and properties.  They have been branding themselves on things like, “We sell more homes than anybody else”.

Since a brand’s presence and a brand’s values are set not only by national advertising, but by every single touchpoint with the customer base, every single agent who carried a particular brand’s flag on her business card imparted a brand’s impression to the customer for the boom years.

What do we suppose that impression was?

At a minimum, I would challenge anyone to seriously claim that there was even a whit of differentiation between the major brands in real estate in the customer’s mind.  That the customer really saw a difference in the values between a Century 21 agent and a RE/Max agent.  Nevermind what the corporate marketing folks were trying to say — what did the customer really believe?  In my view, during the boom times, there wasn’t any differentiation from a brand perspective between the majors.

I suspect the same is true at the local level as well — although, I’m sure exceptions exist.  One set of agents working for one broker in a certain market was more or less the same as another set; just different colors on their business cards and yard signs.

Second, in the mist of the real estate bubble bursting, the real estate advertising and the brand messaging from everyone from NAR to the local brokerage were reminiscent of certain trio of primates: Hear No Evil, See No Evil, Speak No Evil.

Overall, I’d say (and I’ve been saying) that the brand image, brand value of most real estate companies has been an undifferentiated morass of badness.  That real estate agents rank below politicians in respect is just one piece of the evidence.

So here we are in or near a recession.

As I see it, this is an opportunity.  It’s a major opportunity for brand differentiation and brand correction.

Now is the time for major brands to rediscover their brand souls and recommit themselves to those values.

I agree with the commenter in the passage above: “Beyond quality and sheer market weight, brands must be ever more relevant, trustworthy and flexible. They must constantly be in tune with consumers’ values, evolving needs and lifestyles.…”

Nowhere is this more pertinent than in real estate.

If the undifferentiated mass of image of real estate people in the past has been one of grasping greed, uncaring, disrespectful, and unprofessional yahoos running around trying to make a quick buck, the company that manages to be in tune with consumers’ values, evolving needs and lifestyles will have the opportunity to distance itself from the pack of negativity.

The NY-NJ-CT Mercedes-Benz dealers ran a series of ads a few years back whose tagline was, “We live here too”.  They made fun of the huge cost of living in NYC, and made it clear that while they’re selling luxury cars, they understood the consumer, that they were one of them.

In this recession, real estate brands need to double down on market research, double down on brand spend, and take a careful close look at disciplining every single touchpoint with the consumer.  Yes, this means agents.  Now is the time.

In uncertain times, the brand that can truly establish itself, discover its brand soul, as the champion of the consumer on both buyer and seller side, and can communicate that effectively, will emerge stronger than ever.  The brand that can really live up to the promise that its professionals are dedicated to client success, dedicated to helping their American Dream of homeownership reality (instead of a nightmare), that brand will make enormous strides at the expense of the others.  That’s where the consumer’s at right now — uncertain, worried, scared.  A voice of reason, a voice of advice, a voice of assistance — if genuine and authentic — can transform the brand image and help a company rediscover its brand soul.

Those brands that keep on keeping on with the same old tired messages that didn’t resonate when the market was breaking records will find them not resonating now, and will eventually find that keepin’ on keepin’ on ain’t makin’ no forward progress.  And rightfully so.

-rsh

So… CBC Is A Webby Honoree

2 Replies

It appears that Coldwell Banker Commercial, my last oeuvre before I left Realogy, has been selected as a 2008 Webby Honoree.  It seems that C3Cube, our agency who helped design it, must have submitted it as an entry.

Color me pleased as peach. :)

Kinesis Marketing and Cyberitas should both be mentioned, of course, but that isn’t how these things work.  So congrats to the entire team at CBC.

o/

-rsh

Life, Work, and Those Types of Things

2 Replies

Blogging has been nonexistent for a few days. Life, work, situations, scenarios… they conspire to rob me of time.

Sick kids, deadlines at work, less resources than you’d like… these things just kind of pile up.

It’s why I find the prolific bloggers like BHB and Sellsius and 4Realz so amazing. They always have something new up every day. Yeah, I know some of those are group blogs, but still… people don’t realize how hard it is to keep a blog up to date while life marches on and makes its demands on you.

Anyway, last two weeks were rather hellacious; hopefully, the next few days won’t be quite as busy, and I can get back on some semblance of a schedule.

-rsh

Screw Cyberdoormen; I Want Armed Doormen

Leave a reply

I lived in a highrise in NYC for about three years of my life. It was one of the luxury apartments with full doorman service, grand lobby, and marble in the bathrooms. With what my roommate and I paid in rent over three years, we could have bought a nice house in the burbs. So I remember the doorman well.

The thing that always got to me — especially after 9/11 — was that these doormen pretended to provide security, but in fact, did nothing of the sort. If a determined attacker wanted to come into my building and start blowing people away (after all, we did have some very wealthy people living there), there wasn’t a damn thing these doorfolks could have done. Maybe call 911, but anyone can do that.

Now Joe Ferrara brings word of a new twist on the whole doorman thing — the cyberdoorman:

Faced with the rising cost of human labor, it is not surprising that companies are turning to alternatives provided by technology. In apartment buildings, the first to go may be the doorman.

Cyberdoorman, located in New York, provides security and a technological replacement for the building doorman using internet cameras, intercoms, telephones, remote entry and package lock-off rooms. Cyberdoorman is connected to the building devices via a high speed internet connection.

I suppose if all you use your doorman for was to screen visitors, this would work out fine.

For myself, I say, hell with that. If I ever subject myself again to the overpriced jungle that is Manhattan, and my condo/coop fees are going towards paying service staff, then I want armed security guards as doormen. I want them trained in urban combat, certified and provide actual security, not just the illusion of one.

I’m going to go out on a limb here and state that the first building to offer armed security at the door will find a huge upsurge in demand for their apartments in this day and age.

-rsh