At the risk of beating a dead horse, I'd like to continue Friday's conversation about the re-listed house on Avondale.
Thanks to yet another reply by Ms. Reed as well as a series of replies from Ardell, it has finally gotten through my thick skull that "cancel and relist" is different from "let expire and relist." Ms. Reed is guilty only of the latter, which is technically not a violation of NWMLS rules.
Although I now understand the difference, it seems to me like a trivial distinction. Ardell claims that a seller's agent that uses a short listing agreement in order to be able to re-list an unsold property "takes the risk of being replaced as the seller's agent by having short contracts." However, it seems to me that once the benefits of re-listing (falsely appearing to be a "fresh" listing) are explained to the seller, they would be more than happy to keep the agent on board, knowing that this is an agent that is willing to pull whatever kind of tricks are necessary to sell their house.
In fact, Ardell had an awful lot to say on the matter. Here are a few quotes that I found most interesting:
The general public's perception [of the MLS], the one most focused on here...is really the least of our concerns.If the publicly-accessible portion of the MLS is an "advertisement," shouldn't it be held to truth in advertising standards? When a property appears as "new on market" despite having languished non-stop on the market for months upon months, how is that not a deceptive practice? To simply brush off such concerns by saying that the MLS is "not meant for the public" seems a bit cavalier to me.
I am sorry that no one wants to understand that the mls system is not meant for the public to use as a means for purchasing property without an agent.
The public's view [of the MLS] is an "advertisement" for the most part, and not a "sharing of the agent tool". ... It is just a small view of the big picture and one to give the public an "idea" of what is out there...not the whole story.
Ms. Reed's tactic, which Ardell describes as both something that "we [agents] hate" and "an excellent job" appears to have paid off. As Ardell pointed out, the listing has gone to "subject to inspection," presumably meaning a twenty-five to thirty-five thousand dollar payday is in the beleaguered Ms. Reed's near future. When the transaction shows up in the public records, I'll post the last update on this house.