AB472 - Real Estate Appraisals

Dear Rep. Ripp,

It was great to talk to you at my office a few weeks ago about the current business climate and challenges. I am now concerned about AB472 which would prohibit a Realtor from providing an opinion on a property value. It is current practice that homeowners routinely consult a Realtor for questions about the possible value of their home, when they are considering listing or sale but have not yet decided to do so. This would hurt consumers and realtors for several reasons. Please consider:

- Consumers would be required to pay for a more expensive appraisal when such an appraisal is not necessary (divorces and estates) and in areas of the state where licensed appraisers are unwilling to perform this type of work at a dramatically reduced charge.

- Appraisers would have no competition from anyone when determining the value of real estate. By eliminating competition, appraisers will be able to charge more for determining the value of a property.

-It is bad public policy that Realtors will be prevented from providing services to customers unrelated to a real estate transaction without an appraiser license.

Thanks for considering this.

BOO for removing Ziegelbauer

Rep. Sheridan,

How disappointing and purely political for you to remove Rep. Ziegelbauer from his chairmanship simply because you disagree with him on a vote. How WRONG! You are wrong on your view on abortion, and you are wrong to have used your bully pulpit to push around someone with whom you disagree. SHAME on you.

Thanks for standing up for LIFE!

Rep. Ziegelbauer,

Thank you for standing up for what is right and for LIFE and trying to keep abortion out of the Meriter Madison Surgery Center. I am a user of that facility and I am appalled about what could be happening there. I'm so sorry that you've been removed from your chairmanship. I have done things personally and in my business to stand up for what is right, and I thank you for doing so in the face of opposition.

Obamacare = Abortion and the opponents prove my point.

Pro-abortion advocates have shown their duplicity, and I have no doubt that their goal is to use our tax money to pay for abortion. Madeline Anderson's letter in the August 19th Wisconsin State Journal tries to portray things differently. But read carefully she proves my very point.

First she claims that its "a myth that taxpayer dollars would be used to pay for abortions." She then asserts that the "reality" is that private plans "already cover abortion" and that "people should not lose the benefits they currently hold."

Well, Ms. Andersen, which is it? Will the federal tax supported health plan NOT cover abortion and therefore "reduce" benefits, or will my taxes pay for abortion so that you can keep your "benefits"? You can't have it both ways. Both cannot be true!

In contrast, the letter the same day from Barbary Lyons points out that unless abortion is specifically prohibited from the "Obamacare" bill, moves will certainly be made to increase the number of abortions, using our tax dollars. That is clearly the truth.

Course appoval fees (builders)

I ask that you do not implement another fee increase for builder education. You are already collecting fees from us to pay for our registrations and supplement the state coffers. Now you want us to pay to register the classes, so that we can take classes, so that we can pay fees, so that we can be in business? No way!

And don't get this wrong: These fees all get passed on to us and to the consumer one way or another. Whether a class is "free" or not, that cost goes into the expenses of the business offering the class. Whether we pay a fee to go to the class, or whether the business fits it into the overhead of their pricing structure, eventually it goes on to the builder and then to the consumer.

The Builders Associations and businesses offering these courses are your allies. The State was to be responsible for funding builder eduction. Now not only has that funding disappeared, you are proposing for things to go the other direction and to charge the educators!

Finally, won't this actually increase the workload at the DOC? You are proposing that the courses be reviewed every 3 years instead of every 5 years. Why increase your workload?

Clearly, I oppose these changes.

Specific exclusion of abortion from health care reform

Rep Baldwin, Please be sure to specifically exclude abortion from the healthcare reform plan. Also please include specific protections for healthcare providers' rights of conscience. Thank you, Abe J Degnan

Sent 7/27/09 via website

Agricultural land use value

Senator Miller,

What is happening in the state budget never fails to astound me! I've just learned that the Senate caucus will be considering changing the definition of agricultural land to exclude any land that is platted and zoned for residential, commercial or industrial use. As you know, currently agricultural land is valued based on its use, while all other property is valued based on its highest and best use.

This provision would cause land that is devoted to an agricultural use, but is also platted and zoned for a residential, commercial or industrial use to be valued for property tax purposes at its highest and best use. I oppose this, and I urge you to oppose it as well for three reasons:

• This will greatly increase housing costs and hurt affordability.
• This is the worst possible time to be increasing carrying costs on property that will be developed in the future, given the condition of the homebuilding industry.
• This will also hurt farmers. Farmers frequently lease lands that will be used for future development, and these increased costs would be passed on to them.

Please support a good, common sense budget!