NYTimes Predicted San Francisco Would 'Drown In Millionaires' Post IPO Boom; Now Whines That It Never Happened

from the so-much-hype dept

Back in March, NY Times reporter Nellie Bowles had quite a story, announcing that When Uber and Airbnb Go Public, San Francisco Will Drown In Millionaires. Nearly all of the article was quotes from various third party service providers -- real estate, financial planners, party planners -- excitedly planning to cash in, but the overall tone of the article was basically one big "Man, San Francisco is sure going to be totally overrun by obnoxious insanely rich tech bros." When that article came out, I think I heard about it from just about everyone I knew. People both here in the Bay Area and elsewhere were all commenting on it -- in many cases worried what it would do to where we all live.

And, basically none of it happened. So rather than explore why NY Times reporter Nellie Bowles got it wrong, she's just written a new article about the same types of folks as the last article, complaining that they can't find all the "zillionaires" they expected. Maybe because that's not how any of this works and the original article was feeding a nonsense narrative? But that's not covered. There's no mention of the earlier article at all. There's no exploration of why the predictions didn't come true. Just scores of quotes from people disappointed that the throngs of stupid rich tech bros spending silly money didn't actually appear.

This seems like the kind of thing that the NY Times would know better than to do. Both stories are making grand claims, where data could and should exist, but supporting them solely with a few limited anecdotes. There are good times to use anecdotes as a narrative tool in reporting, but considering how frequently I heard from people who honestly believed that tech IPOs were going to completely change San Francisco over the past few months -- which didn't even remotely happen -- it seems like the NY Times owes readers a bit more self-reflection on why it ran the original story, why it framed it the way it did, and why its predictions that were written as if they were set in stone never actually happened.

This is the kind of thing that the NY Times used to have a "public editor" to handle, but the NY Times decided a few yeas back that it no longer needed such a position. Each and every day we learn more about why that was a mistake.

Filed Under: ipos, millionaires, predictions, real estate, reporting, san francisco
Companies: ny times

Real Estate Developer Found Using Video Game Footage In Marketing Material... Which Is Pretty Cool!

from the just-real-enough dept

We've featured a number of stories here about entities attempting to pass off video game footage as something in real life. On the one hand, since these stories usually feature governments doing this in a pretty bald-faced attempt at trickery, and since these attempts at trickery typically have something to do with the realm of war, it's easy to take a negative view of the whole thing entirely. On the other hand, it's hard to escape the notion that our video games have gotten so realistic so as to be able to fool large swaths of people into thinking they are depictions of the real thing, which is pretty damned cool.

And, yet, even when the use of game footage is more innocuous, it still seems to get people's fur up. In the UK, one housing developer was caught using a screenshot from Cities: Skylines, a city-building game, in its pitch material for a housing project.

The eight-page brochure, which was published by this newspaper earlier this week,outlines Norwich-based firm Lanpro’s vision for a town the size of Thetford, just off the A1067. Lifelong gamer, Matt Carding-Woods, recognised an image used on page three of the document as a screenshot from the 2015 city building game, Cities: Skylines, released by studio Colossal Order.

Lanpro defended the image’s use as educational, and said the document was only ever intended to be distributed internally.

A number of things apparently gave it away, including small patches of brown trees being rendered around garbage incinerators to represent pollution. While that's actually quite funny, some residents and internet users criticized the developer for failing to note that the image was a screenshot from the game. Residents in particular seemed to indicate that the image's use demonstrated the cavalier attitude the developer was taking the project as a whole.

But how does that make any sense? Developers typically include renderings of future projects in pitch material. Those renderings are usually created by graphical artists that specialize in that sort of thing. But if Cities:Skylines is simply good enough at depicting residential neighborhoods that one can create a rendering within the game and use that instead, how is that anything other than pretty neat? Now, in this case, it seems that Lanpro used a neighborhood created in the game by another player. But, again, so what? As Lanpro's Chris Leeming notes, it's not like this is the first time a developer has used images from the game to pitch a project.

“It is after the detailed technical work and analysis that we will be able to form a masterplan for the proposals and provide an image of what the scheme may look like.”

He added that there have been several examples of the “serious use of this software to model, engage and explain projects,” including by city planners working in Stockholm, Sweden.

And that makes sense. As games become better simulations and have increasingly convincing imagery, I would expect to see more of this rather than less.

Filed Under: cities: skylines, real estate, rendering, simulation, video game
Companies: lanpro

Zillow Sued By Homeowner Because Its Estimate Is Lower Than The Seller Wants To Sell The House For

from the sellersmarket.com dept

Real estate site Zillow is getting sued. Again. The company has already been sued for trade secret theft, copyright infringement, and settled multiple lawsuits related to harassment and other workplace violations. This time it's getting sued for handing out a "Zestimate" the plaintiff feels is too low.

Barbara Andersen, an Illinois resident and real estate litigation attorney, is asking the court to force Zillow to take down its estimate of her home's value, which she believes is incorrect.

According to Andersen, Zillow falsely stated her home sold for $685,000 last fall. Most recently, it appraised the home at $562,000, a $90,000 drop in just six months, the lawsuit states.

She says she has repeatedly reached out to Zillow, and written to its legal department seeking removal or amendment of the Zestimate, but her communications were ignored.

Andersen is attempting to make Zillow subject to Illinois real estate law, even though, as she notes in her lawsuit, Zillow doesn't actually perform appraisals. Appraising without a license is illegal in Illinois, but this assertion seems to be undercut by Andersen's quoting of Zillow's extensive disclaimer. From the filing [PDF]:

In describing its "zestimate", Zillow denies that it is an "appraisal". A copy of their webpage description is attached hereto as Exhibit A. However, Zillow concedes that it is an estimate as to market value and is promoted as a tool for potential buyers to use in assessing market value of a given property. As such, despite their disclaimer, Zillow's zestimate meets the definition of an appraisal under Illinois law. As such, Zillow should not be engaging in this business practice without a valid appraisal license and, further, the consent of the homeowner.

But according to the law she cites, Zillow would have to refer to its "zestimates" as appraisals and/or infer that it's licensed in the state to perform appraisals. It doesn't do either of those things. Buyers browsing the site may believe the estimates are actually appraisals, but Zillow doesn't present these as anything other than estimates.

This is a somewhat novel use of state licensing laws against Zillow. Normally, it's been real estate brokers threatening lawsuits or legal action, hoping to lock Zillow out of the local housing market. In this case, though, it's a homeowner who can't sell her house and is hoping to hold Zillow responsible for the lack of interested buyers. Since it's unlikely Zillow is solely to blame for Andersen being unable to make back what she paid for the home, there are more than a few questionable assertions in her complaint.

Since the recession, Andersen has been attempting to sell her home on different occasions. However, a tremendous roadblock to same has been the fact that Zillow posts a "zestimate" of person's homes without their permission, consent and/or any license to do so…

Andersen doesn't explain why she feels Zillow should legally be obligated to obtain permission from homeowners before posting its estimates. Nor does she attempt to link the multiple failed sales attempts with Zillow's zestimates, other than implying (in a very conclusory manner) that price fluctuations in Zillow's listing are keeping buyers away -- even when the "zestimate" was higher than her asking price. She also states she's been doing this "since the recession," which suggests she's been in the process of selling the house for a very long time -- a time where apparently Zillow's estimates were having zero negative effect at all on potential buyers (i.e., when Zillow's estimates aligned better with Andersen's view of the house's value).

Then there's this part, which suggests her inability to sell might be completely unrelated to Zillow's estimate.

[I]n the last months, Andersen decided to lower her asking price and terminate her broker (in order to reduce closing expenses). At approximately that point in time, the zestimate suddenly started to plummet. Now the zestimate is effectively that of the new construction homes described i.e. with no reflection of the superior locale, etc. as noted above.

Correlation isn't causation, but the complaint asks the judge to believe that it is. Andersen's arguments are further undermined by similarly threadbare assertions. For example, this paragraph of the suit suggests Andersen's view of her house's value is perhaps TOO subjective:

After the recession concluded, Glenview allowed new construction. Those homes have approximately the same square footage as Andersen. However, they are located in a less desirable (more condensed homes, busy streets, by Willow Creek Church, by a cemetery and less desirable golf course) and further removed area of the Glen Town Center. The only similarity of these homes is that they gave themselves the label of being located within the Glen.

The suit also contains allegations Zillow lowers estimates when sellers don't use brokers, since one of Zillow's revenue streams is partnerships with brokers. Maybe this is true, but the lawsuit contains nothing that backs up the claim other than stuff like the paragraph above.

Whatever's really happening at Zillow, it's unlikely the site is solely -- or even chiefly -- responsible for any seller's inability to sell their property. Zillow may have a larger share of the estimate market than its competitors, but it's hardly the only company in the business. Andersen claims Zillow will suffer no harm by delisting her property or changing the estimate to reflect her idea of what the asking price should be, but it's hard to see how this could possibly be true. If the site is viewed as being solely reflective of sellers' desired asking prices, it has zero value to anyone looking to purchase a house.

Filed Under: barbara andersen, estimates, home sales, lawsuits, opinions, real estate
Companies: zillow

Apartment Building Attempts To Coerce Tenants Into Crazy Social Media Policy Post-Lease

from the with-facebook-friends-like-these dept

We've done enough posts on apartment complex owners and property management companies to know that too many of them think that they can wage some kind of insane war on negative reviews that might be posted on social media and websites. To combat this, rather than simply addressing the concerns of their tenants, these misguided companies instead attempt to put social media and review policies as riders on the leases they offer. When that fails, some will either sue the critical parties, or will write in five-figure fines for posting anything that could possibly be deemed as critical.

But to see a really brazen attempt to shut up tenants, we can thank Dave Blevins for pointing us to the story of how one apartment owner tried to unilaterally force residents not only to keep quiet with any of their critiques online, but required them to "like" the apartment company on Facebook.

As KSL-TV reports, residents of an apartment building in Salt Lake City, Utah, say they found a curious piece of paper stuck to their doors. Headlined "Facebook Addendum," it had fascinating stipulations.

It insisted that tenants had five days to "friend" the City Park Apartments on Facebook or they'd be in breach of their lease. The fact that they'd already signed their lease perhaps months previously didn't seem to matter to the owners. Oh, and then there was the part about releasing the building owners to post pictures of the tenants or their visitors to, yes, the building's Facebook page.

You will also be traumatized into delirium when I tell you that another stipulation was that the tenants don't post anything negative on social media. This seems a strangely unbalanced "friendship."

So, not only a prohibition on negative reviews on social media, but also a requirement to give an endorsement of sorts instead. And all long after the lease was signed? Oh, this was just destined to go well for all involved.

Actually, the apartment building's Facebook page has a barely-there review score, with many folks dropping in to post negative reviews simply due to the draconian "policy" foisted upon its residents. I'd link to that particular Facebook page but, strangely, it has suddenly become unavailable for unknown reasons. As a result of all the backlash, the apartment building's law firm has helpfully fallen on the sword, indicating that it apparently didn't bother to review the notice it sent to tenants.

Perhaps the owners thought this was reasonable, modern behavior. A spokesman for the law offices of Kirk A. Cullimore, which represents the building owners, offered me this explanation:

As part of opening its pool and an anticipated pool party, City Park desired to provide some protection to its residents and its owners from usage of photos on its Facebook page from all community events, including the opening pool party. The "Facebook" addendum was provided to them to assist in that protection. That addendum went beyond the request and intent of City Park Apartments, and was not carefully reviewed to ensure that it met with their needs and requests. At no time was any resident in jeopardy of eviction or action from City Park for failure to sign the addendum or "friend" City Park Apartments. City Park has not implemented the addendum nor is it requiring its residents to execute it.

One wonders exactly how many billable hours were assigned for the task of creating an addendum outside of the lease agreement for tenants that the apartment complex apparently didn't want, which involved required Facebook likes and prohibited negative reviews, all in order to protect tenants from the horrors of the internet creeping into a simple pool party. Sounds like exactly the kind of thing that would either spur the choice to go with another legal team, or thank them for taking the heat via a heaping help of shielding bullshit.

Regardless, it would probably be best for the apartment to focus on making tenants happy rather than worrying about their social media reviews.

Filed Under: landlord, likes, non disparagement, real estate, salt lake city, social media
Companies: city park apartments, facebook

DailyDirt: (Not So) Huge Tracts Of Land...

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Maybe if you had a sizable fortune, you wouldn't want huge tracts of land to live on, but more than a few billionaires seem to like owning islands or a few hundred acres in remote locations. But you don't necessarily have to be rich to rule a tiny part of the world -- you just need to have the will to do it. Sorta.

• Mark Zuckerberg has spent over $100 million on various properties to secure his privacy IRL. He's not the only wealthy individual to buy up strategic plots of land to make sure his home (or homes) has a nice fortress around it. You don't necessarily need to be a billionaire to have a private spot all to yourself, but you can get a better ocean view if you are. [url]
• Renato Barros, aka Prince Renato II of the country Pontinha, created his own island country when he bought an island off the coast of Portugal for just 25,000 euros about 15 years ago. This country has only four citizens -- Renato, his wife and two kids. Pontinha is also one of only a handful of nations that generates all of its energy from renewable resources. [url]
• There are estimated to be over 400 micronations -- such as the Imperial Kingdom of Calsahara, the Conch Republic, and the Principality of Sealand -- that no one has ever heard of. Part of the reason no one has ever heard of these places is that many of them are not officially recognized as sovereign states. But if you're crazy enough to want to declare yourself a dictator of your own realm, you can. [url]

After you've finished checking out those links, take a look at our Daily Deals for cool gadgets and other awesome stuff.

Filed Under: billionaires, dictator, mark zuckerberg, micronations, pontinha, private islands, real estate, renato barros

FAA Says Drones May Be Used For Fun... But Not For Profit

from the because-how-dare-we-allow-innovation dept

Earlier this year, we wrote about a court saying that the FAA's rules that banned the use of drones for anything commercial were overstepping the FAA's mandate, and making it clear that such drones should be considered legal. The FAA has appealed, and in an attempt to drive home its point that not a single potential commercial use of a drone is legal, the FAA has doubled down by clearly laying out what's not allowed. Lots of people are pointing out that the FAA's claims are likely to ground the high profile plans by Amazon to deliver packages by drone, but it's some of the other things that are on the prohibited list that strike me as even more ridiculous: I can almost, kinda, barely, sorta see the rationale for saying that package delivery is not allowed, since you could see how that might interfere with other things or cause problems. And, in case you're wondering, the footnoted "6" after that "delivering packages to people for a fee" clarifies that "free shipping" on a purchased product doesn't count.

But... the rest of the items in the list all seem very troubling to me. None of those seem like cases where there's likely to be any interference with aircraft or any other kind of problem. Drone use for real estate videos is increasingly common and something that actually seems like a very good idea. Here's an example of one such video: Can anyone explain any reason why this should be illegal? Same with the use of drones to determine if commercial crops should be watered. That sounds like a really good idea. But it's not allowed. Because the FAA appears to basically want to control absolutely everything. This seems like a massive overreach in so many ways.

Filed Under: commercial use, crops, drones, faa, real estate, regulation, tacocopter

Real Estate Listing Services Use Questionable Copyright Claims In Attempt To Block Criticism Of Agents

from the i've-got-a-feist-to-show-you dept

We've noted in the past just how incredibly backwards facing the real estate industry is. Last year, I got to present at a real estate industry conference, where I compared how the MLS (multiple-listing service) players were similar to the record labels and music studios, acting as monopolist gatekeepers to information. And, just as the entertainment industry gatekeepers have attacked disruptive innovators with lawsuits, so too do the MLS operations. In the past we've discussed how they've attacked web upstarts like Zillow and Redfin. The latest is that they've gone after NeighborCity, an offering from a company called American Home Realty Network (AHRN), who dared to make use of real estate data to actually rate real estate agents on their performance. As you might imagine, the real estate agents don't like that very much.

AHRN noticed that it suddenly received a flood of complaints and cease & desist letters conveniently timed exactly to the dates of the National Association of Realtors's (NAR's) annual meeting in November of 2011 -- and each of the letter seemed to include similar language. After responding to all of the complaints, two separate MLS providers sued AHRN. Amusingly, prior to the lawsuit, an executive for one of the MLS's (NorthStar, from Minnesota) appeared to accidentally cc AHRN on an email to its lawyer, complaining about "the bad fellow" (AHRN CEO Jonathan Cardella) not simply bending over and taking down NeighborCity in response to the complaints, and suggesting that filing copyright infringement lawsuits against AHRN/NeighborCity would be useful in bringing a "world of hurt" on the company. The email also discusses having various MLSs share the costs of litigation.

Indeed, NorthStar and a separate MLS, Metropolitan Regional Information Systems, Inc. (MRIS) appear to have followed through and sued for copyright infringement. You can see MRIS's filing embedded below. MRIS repeatedly insists that it holds a copyright on its database, completely ignoring fairly well-established law that you can't copyright facts, and that MRIS's copyright (if there is one) is limited to the creative works it added to the process. Instead, MRIS repeatedly claims to hold a copyright on the entirety of the database. It also claims to hold the copyrights on the photos uploaded by individual agents, saying that as part of that process, the copyrights are assigned to MRIS.

NeighborCity has hit back with its response (also embedded below), arguing that MRIS has no such copyright, and citing the litany of cases that establish you cannot copyright factual information, relying heavily (of course) on the important Feist ruling in the Supreme Court, which rejected "sweat of the brow" arguments for copyright, and said you cannot copyright a collection of facts, such as a telephone book.

It seems that the chance of succeeding on such a claim is slim to none. MRIS and its lawyers should be slapped around by the judge for even trying such an argument. MRIS clearly seems to recognize this by trying to use the photographs to make a separate argument. It claims that every photograph that is uploaded has its copyright assigned to MRIS (I'm actually a bit surprised that real estate agents would agree to this...) and thus it also alleges infringement on the photos. AHRN, however, points out that MRIS failed to register the individual copyrights on the photos, instead only registering a copyright on the "catalog." Here, AHRN notes (again) that there is widespread precedent limiting what sort of copyright can be applied to a catalog where little to no additional work was done by the party claiming copyright. Further, it points to the Muench case, which noted the "the registrant of a compilation copyright must list the names of the authors of the underlying works." That's just a district court ruling, so it's not clear how big an impact it would have.

AHRN also questions the claim that anything it has done creates irreparable harm to MRIS is completely baseless. MRIS's best argument is that outdated info on NeighborCity reflects poorly on MRIS, but AHRN points out that it would reflect much worse on NeighborCity itself.

The real issue, of course, is almost certainly that the real estate agents don't like the fact that they're being rated by the site. The fact that NeighborCity has operated for years without a problem... until it put up its agent rating service, makes that pretty clear.

The larger issue may be that AHRN is also alleging that the action confirms that real estate agents are violating the final judgment in the antitrust lawsuit the US government filed against the National Association of Realtors. The email that was sent to AHRN certainly seems to indicate plans for concerted action. Combined with the timing correlating to the NAR event... and there's at least a reasonable case for the DOJ to look into the activity here by real estate agents and MLS services.

In the end, though, this is the same story we've seen over and over again. Gatekeepers don't like being disintermediated by disruptive innovation. So, rather than adapt, they sue.

Filed Under: database rights, real estate
Companies: ahrn, mls, nar, northstar

Real Estate Firms Slipping 'Non-Disparagement' Clauses Into Rental Agreements To Stifle Online Criticism

from the makes-you-wonder-what-they're-afraid-of dept

Rob Hyndman points us to travel guide guru Arthur Frommer speaking out about a ridiculous trend from some real estate firms that do vacation rentals: slipping a non-disparagement clause into contracts that effectively forbid you from writing a bad review about them online. Frommer's discussion is built off of an article Christopher Elliott wrote for the Washington Post, highlighting the trend:

But don’t go looking for the Dorows’ opinion on the Web. Within a few days of posting it, they received a letter from their vacation rental agency.

“It has come to our attention that you have written an unauthorized review regarding your stay at a home managed by Progressive Management Concepts,” it said. “If this review is published by VRBO.com, you will be in violation of the confidentiality clause of the rental contract you agreed to when you made your reservation.”

When the Dorows refused to remove the review from VRBO.com, the site through which they’d found the rental, Progressive Management promptly charged $500 to their credit card.

If this kind of thing sounds familiar, you may be remembering how some doctors and dentists have done similar things (though using an even more nefarious method of demanding assignment of the copyright on any such review).

Frommer, reasonably, finds this behavior deplorable, and notes that this is only likely to expand to lots of other things that get reviewed online, such as hotel stays. As he notes, since properties like this already have your credit card on file, it's a real risk that they can then just try to "charge" you for writing a bad review. Frommer also disputes the arguments of those in favor of such clauses by noting their argument is basically that they don't like free speech:

Now the various people who defend these clauses, base their arguments on all sorts of horrid, potential and hypothetical threats. They claim there are a lot of people who, upon checking out, threaten the rental property with a negative review unless they are given a retroactive discount on the rental. They claim, in effect, that vacation renters are blackmailing them.

In my view, simply to state that argument is to refute it. You could justify a great many denials of our First Amendment rights of free speech with scary hypotheticals like that.

Of course, the best response to something like this is to recognize that if you put such a clause into a contract, it means that you're hiding something, and aren't confident enough in the quality of your property that you can handle criticism. It should be an automatic disqualifier for a renter. Unfortunately, though, as the article notes, sometimes you don't even get to see the terms until after you agree. While I'd argue that makes such terms unenforceable, it does make things more complicated. At the very least, though, it should allow people to post a review that merely notes the fact that such a clause is in the contract, and how that suggests no confidence in the quality of the property...

Filed Under: disparagement, real estate, reviews, vacation rental

Canadian Real Estate Agents: Without Us, Poor Homeowners Would Be Getting Attacked And Killed

from the oh-really-now? dept

It's often amazing how legacy industry organizations come up with the most far-fetched and ridiculous reasons to insist that giving the public more information isn't actually in the public interest. Rob Hyndman points us to an effort by real estate agents in Canada who are fighting back against a plan to put house listing information online by claiming that this will expose home sellers to crime, as suddenly criminals will break into their homes. This is based on... absolutely nothing. Well, actually, it's based on a false claim that realtors are getting attacked and killed already. The Globe and Mail report on this story could have done a better job calling the realtors on their crazy claims, but goes with a more understated approach:

“Easy access to information online is a huge safety issue,” said Von Palmer, the real estate board’s chief privacy officer. “There is a real possibility of break-ins and assaults; you only have to read the headlines to imagine what might happen. You hear stories about realtors getting attacked and killed. Can you imagine if we put that information out there about consumers? You can only imagine the headlines.”

A spokesman for the Toronto Police Service said he wasn’t aware violence against real estate agents was a problem in the city.

Also, they could just look south of the border. The information that the Canadians are now discussing putting online is, for the most part, already available online here in the US. And while I'm sure if they tried hard enough, somewhere, somehow, someone might be able to connect a real estate listing to crime, it's certainly not a common occurrence.

It's pretty clear that the real issue is just one of control. The real estate agents benefit from being the gatekeepers to that information, and they fear what happens when people can start to route around them. A few months back, I did a talk at a real estate conference, where I compared the music industry to the real estate industry, and it was amazing just how many similarities there were between the two. They were two big legacy industries trying to hold back the tide of what the internet allows, and they were able to come up with all sorts of ridiculous scenarios to explain how horrible the world would be if the information they used to control was allowed to go free online. But it's tough to stop the free flow of information, and real estate agents will learn soon enough that a strategy of spreading FUD isn't a way to future-proof your business. Learning to adapt, and to take advantage of the spread of information by becoming an enabler rather than a gatekeeper, really is the key.

Filed Under: canada, control, fud, listings, openness, real estate

DailyDirt: Living Out Of A Box (Literally)

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

The real estate market hasn't recovered from the financial crisis, and it looks like lots of folks are asking themselves whether or not owning a home is really that important anymore. Cheaper housing options could offer some answers, so here are just a few examples of homes made out of shipping containers.

• Shipping containers: a nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there. Maybe a really fancy shipping container could compete with some mobile homes...? [url]
• Using shipping containers as housing for disaster relief projects sounds like a good idea. But doing so might attach a certain stigma to shipping container homes. [url]
• IKEA hopes you'll furnish your new shipping container home with its products... Some assembly required. [url]
• Forget the one laptop per child for $100. How about one house per family for $1000? And as with OLPC, the prototypes actually cost a lot more -- but we're getting there. [url]
• If you're looking for more architecture projects, check out what's currently floating around the StumbleUpon universe. [url]  

By the way, StumbleUpon can recommend some good Techdirt articles, too.

Filed Under: homes, housing, real estate, shipping containers
Companies: ikea