Dec 20 2011
LLR’s recomendations on regulation
Today, I recieved a report from the director of Labor, Licensing, & Regulation. This report contains information on need for reform. The goals of the agency are reduce fees and decrease onerous regulations. In other words, get Government out of your wallet and our of your decision making process. Y’all know I’ve always been in favor of the open market drivin by consumers to be the regulator when possible.
Jan 06, 2012 @ 21:17:45
A politcal appointee gone mad! Do away with consumer protection because it isn’t strong enough? This report is a joke right?? If it wasn’t met to be, shame on you!
Jan 05, 2012 @ 09:40:55
I wish I was in your district so that I could campaign against you! I cannot believe that you could actually believe that deregulation of these industires would be good for your constituents. Governor Campbell worked hard to see that the regulation of these professionals was to adhere them to some sort of standards and ethics to protect the consumer of this state. You sir, obviously have no regard for the consumer – aka your constituents and the rest of South Carolinians who depend on having the right to be assured that the professional that they hire is held to some standards mandated by the state. You are a complete fool to be taken in by this proposed legislation. LLR has been reduced in services by this director so much so that the consumer and the licensee cannot even get a human on the phone much less a question answered or a problem heard. It is obvious that she is in over her head and has not a clue as to what she is doing just like our current goverrnor – no experience and common sense has certainly been front and center. This propsed legislation is a recipe for disaster and it is elected officials of this state like you that will be our downfall.
Jan 01, 2012 @ 16:14:21
Wow, 2 things here.
1) Freedom from regulation is a recipe for disaster. If you need proof, just rewind the past 3-4 years of our economy and cite what’s happened with our banking and coincidentally to this post, the real estate industry…
2) I love the lack of participation on his own blog to his own constituents that Kevin Bryant has shown here. All you people who vote him in should continue to get what you deserve.
Dec 28, 2011 @ 15:19:33
This is an excellent start in reducing government to it’s proper functions. To those who support licensing as proof of competence, not as a means of livelihood or barriers to entry, then do as Gary has and support voluntary industry certifications through associations whose members are active in the field. Then the cost you incur will be voluntary and thus make the trainers accountable for providing meaningful education.
To the rest of you who count on government to reduce your competition, welcome to the real world. Work on your own skills and education as better service to your clients is your key to success.
Dec 28, 2011 @ 14:27:36
I am delighted with this effort. Long overdue. The recommendatios to stop licensing on these industries is a good start on having the government get out of the way of the free market. I am a Business Broker (non licensed by the state, but Certified by the International Business Brokers Association) l was forced to get a real estate license by state law in order to sell real estate in concert with selling a business. I was forced to pay for classroom training and devote a number of weeks to sit thru these simplistic courses designed to teach how to pass the licensing test. I can truly say, it was a total waste of time and money for me. I have a BS and a MS and have run companies. However, I have invested hundreds of training hours and networking events with the IBBA that has been helpful to further developing my job skills. And I am certified. I strongly support industry association activities to voluntarily provide the training and certification that the industry deems useful and appropriate. I see no useful role for state licensing in the process. The beneficiaries of state/local govt processes are the incumbents, the bureacrats and the board members. It is like a union looking out for its union members at the expense the non union participants. I am surprised by the above comments…I thought there would be a lot more support for this much needed change.
If we can get this done in SC…then lets go to work on the feds and eliminate the EPA, DOE, Dept of Education, Dept of Agriculture, etc. We need freedom from regulation at all levels of govt.
Dec 27, 2011 @ 19:48:16
Can you imagine what kind of professionalism the building industry would have if local HBA’s were responsilbe for regulation. Just join and we will turn our back. We need members. Who cares what kind of work you do!!! What a STUPID idea. I have a better cost savings idea. Get rid of directors with Political aspirations.
Dec 22, 2011 @ 23:02:12
I strongly disagree with this. I have been in Real Estate for 13 years and am proud to say that I earned my license along with my Brokers License. We are held to a higher standard and to the code of ethics which I value. If you just let everyone in where will all of that go. I personally think it should be harder to get your license! If you have no one to be accountable to, what then?
Dec 22, 2011 @ 19:21:11
Sure and let every home improvement employee build houses too! (Sarcasm) REALTORS get a higher level of education rather than just getting a license. What we do takes education, successfull background check, patience, knowledge & SO MUCH MORE! Those that are GOOD continually expand on education not because we have to But because we want to be better for our clients! Would the director of the LLR want a local homeless person getting cleaned up, coming to their home and listing it for sale? Then on the first ‘showing appt’ the listing person robs everthing of value in the home of the LLR Director. Seems like a silly scenerio, but it COULD happen if the license is taken away.
Dec 22, 2011 @ 18:54:23
This report’s suggestion concerning real estate licensing is ridiculous. The references to the reports findings on the results of investigations deals with the fact the the majority of complaints against licensed agents are not related to agents breaking law as much as consumers desires not being met. The mere fact that an agent has a license oftentimes encourages them to remain compliant to the charge they take when representing themselves as a LICENSED real estate professional. While it is not a requirement to have a license to sell a property, as evidenced by FSBO listings. Would you trust that seller to not take advantage of a buyer either through negligence or intention? We need higher standards for people that are being trusted with what is usually a consumer’s largest investment and personal information.
Dec 22, 2011 @ 18:35:20
This section regarding real estate is a joke. And they used a quote from 1962 by Friedman to support their position? The same Freidman that advocated the legalization of marijuana and prostitution? The same Friedman that said medical licenses were unnecessary?
It is obvious the authors formed their opinion first, and tried to justify it with poorly researched facts and half-baked assumptions.
Dec 22, 2011 @ 18:11:27
This report suggests that real estate agents should NOT be licensed and regulated by the state. After the recent problems experienced in the housing industry and ensuing economic meltdown, does this really sound like a good idea to anyone?
Dec 22, 2011 @ 17:52:59
I am one of your constituents and also a licensed real estate professional. Removing the licensing requirement is one the stupidest suggestions I have ever heard. If anything, the requirements to become a licensed real estate agent in South Carolina are too low.