The MAR Opposes This Legislation

[James H. Bushart]

Want to save lives and reduce accidents?

Support a law that requires the use of hand-free devices to speak on a cell phone while you drive.

This bill is being objected to by the Missouri Association of Realtors.

Legislation would restrict drivers' use of cell phones

By Kalen Ponche
Two state legislators from St. Charles County are trying to ban people from using a cell phone while driving unless they have a hands-free device.

Freshman Sen. Tom Dempsey, R-23rd District, and Rep. Joe Smith, R-14th District, are each sponsoring similar bills that would require drivers to use a hands-free device while driving.

Exceptions would include emergency service professionals, people calling for an emergency or people using a digital two-way radio who are driving a commercial vehicle.

Smith and Dempsey, the former speaker of the House, first introduced the legislation last year.

"I think greater use of the cell phones while driving is becoming a real safety issue," Dempsey said. "The number of accidents in which people were talking on their cell phones, the number of accidents caused by that is increasing every year."

Dempsey said the law would help drivers keep both hands on the steering wheel. Hands-free devices can range from a wired earpiece that plugs into the phone to a stereo system that uses speakerphone. Prices can range from the Plantronics C90 Earbud Headset for $19.99 to Sony's SRS-BTM30 Stereo Bluetooth Speaker System for $149.99.

The bill doesn't specify a certain type of hands-free device. Although some enable the user to speak a phone number aloud, others still require the user to dial in the phone number. Smith said many people are so familiar with their phones they would be able to dial without taking their eyes off the road.

"The whole idea is to keep your eyes ahead of you on the road itself, so we basically need a better system with dialing," Smith said.

Verizon Wireless and other cell phone companies have supported similar legislation that passed in other states, including New York, Connecticut, New Jersey and California. But the law has drawn criticism from people who say there is not enough evidence tying cell phone use to car crashes.

Dempsey and Smith said they would like the law to be a primary enforcement law, which means police could pull someone over for talking on a cell phone without a hands-free device. The punishment would be a $20 fine for a first-time offense and $50 for subsequent offenses.

Brad Norris, a spokesman for the St. Peters Police Department, said people talking on their cell phones while driving is often a contributing factor in car accidents.

"(Cell phones) do cause people to not pay attention to their surroundings," he said. "I can't give you an average count, but I know they run red lights, and they don't pay attention. They run stop signs."

However, Norris said people are probably just as distracted by talking on a phone using a hands-free device as they would be holding the cell phone.

"If you're not paying attention, you're not paying attention," he said.

Smith said he also is planning to file legislation later this month that would require drivers ages 15 to 17 to take a driver's education class and spend time with a driving instructor before they would be eligible to take the driver's license exam.

[bjones1]

James......... Do you have any information as to why the MAR is opposing this legislation? Personally, I think the fines should be higher. $20 to $50 is hardly a deterrant.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by bjones1

James......... Do you have any information as to why the MAR is opposing this legislation? Personally, I think the fines should be higher. $20 to $50 is hardly a deterrant.

In the words of their lobbyist:

To: Missouri Association of REALTORS Legislative Report List
From: Sam Licklider
Subj: Legislative Report
Date: January 8, 2008

It's kind of exciting; I've had a bunch of calls from people wanting information in advance of the Capitol Conference to share with others at staff meetings and other venues. With that in mind I've revised a report I did earlier and am sending it to everyone. Now, we'll not cover all these issues with the talking points that are created for the meeting, probably will limit them to the recording fee increase, the license law change and the cell phone issue. However you can use this material as a guide to move you visit beyond those issues and into other areas if you wish.

This is not meant to be an exhaustive list of issues that I believe will be before the Missouri General Assembly this coming session. It merely hits the highpoints and, where appropriate, gives past positions that have been taken on similar legislation.

Since I don't have copies of all bills introduced to date I'm basing some of my comments on the bills that were introduced last session or bills that have been introduced in other jurisdictions.

Predatory Lending-I'm not fond of that description but it has become embedded in the vocabulary so I'm going to use it nonetheless. There will be at least two and possibly as many as 5 bills introduced on this issue. The problem that these bills create is that if they are too restrictive they limit the amount of capital that comes into Missouri, in addition I've seen predatory lending bills from other states that would make the real estate agent responsible for determining if the client or customer can really afford the property-while I don't believe that language has passed anywhere. While it is not popular to be opposed to limiting predatory lending I believe that the problem is a national one and needs to be addressed in that context.

Mortgage Fraud-there will be two or three bills on this issue. There is an interdepartmental task force working on this issue.

Recording fee increases-Senator Justus has filed her bill which would increase the fees from $3.00 to $10.00. I believe that there will be another one filed which moves the fee up to $12.00 incrementally. I've told all concerned that our position has not changed. In addition Senator Yvonne Wilson has filed legislation similar to that of Senator Justus. Both are from Kansas City.

License Law changes-we have a bill being drafted consistent with a position taken at the fall BOD. This removes the phrase in brackets in the italic type section below. This will alleviate concerns expressed by the homebuilding associations that the MREC will attempt to fine their members.
6. The provisions of sections 339.010 to 339.180 and sections 339.710 to 339.860 shall not apply to:
(1) Any person, partnership, association, or corporation who as owner, lessor, or lessee shall perform any of the acts described in subsection 1 of this section with reference to property owned or leased by them, or to the regular employees thereof [, provided such owner, lessor, or lessee is not engaged in the real estate business]; Note: The material in the brackets is to be removed from the statute.

Commercial Portability-there was a meeting with representatives of the MREC on December 19 to present a draft modeled on the Ohio act. It was apparent that the commission was not excited about the proposal. Fortunately Lew Melahn the General Counsel to the Association was at the meeting and he proposed an alternative that, once he gets completed should achieve our objectives. The two real estate brokers, who attended, Dan Sight and Carl Conceller, were extremely helpful in framing the issue.

Private Transfer Fee rights-I've discussed this issue with other interested groups, while all feel it is a potential problem there is no consensus on how the bill should be structured. It is a work in progress. Hopefully something will be in draft form by the meeting next week.

Cell Phones--there are two or three bills that criminalize cell phone use in some circumstances. They are uniformly bad ideas.

Limiting access to public records--I've adopted that as kind of a catch-all phrase because it covers at least two issues. The first was an attempt to prohibit assessors from posting more than one photograph or any diagrams of property on their web site; the second was an attempt by the County Collectors to prohibit the distribution of personal and real property tax information. Both failed last year but the issues will be back this year.

Home Inspector licensing-this one is an extremely interesting issue; there is significant division within the home inspection industry about the need. The Missouri Association of REALTORS® position is quite clear. We feel that some reasonable system of licensing home inspectors should be maintained. We feel that reasonable competency should be expected of inspectors and that a method should be adopted to allow the public to raise complaints with a state licensing agency if they feel that the inspection was not conducted to a proper standard.

Tax Credit issues-this is an area that we will have to watch very carefully, there are a number of proposals being floated that would either severely limit all tax credits, do away with them, or expand them. The message we want to send to the General Assembly is that Historic Tax Credits and Low Income Housing Tax Credits, Neighborhood Preservation Tax Credits and Rebuilding Communities Tax Credits are responsible of a huge amount of development in Missouri and essentially pay for themselves over the long term.

[James H. Bushart]

Home Inspector licensing-this one is an extremely interesting issue; there is significant division within the home inspection industry about the need. The Missouri Association of REALTORS® position is quite clear. We feel that some reasonable system of licensing home inspectors should be maintained. We feel that reasonable competency should be expected of inspectors and that a method should be adopted to allow the public to raise complaints with a state licensing agency if they feel that the inspection was not conducted to a proper standard.

HI licensing has desceptively moved to the bottom of the MAR's list of legislative priorities....but there is gold in this statement.

"(We feel) a method should be adopted to allow the public to raise complaints with a state licensing agency if they feel that the inspection was not conducted to a proper standard."

The State of Missouri already has a means for the public to raise complaints with the State Attorney General if they feel an inspection was not conducted to a proper standard.

In a total of five years, 13 people have taken that route or contacted the BBB. That is several hundred less than the number who complained about their real estate salesman to the AG, and even less than the number who called the AG and complained about their florist.

But there is one member of the public without a place to go to....at state level....to complain about a home inspection. That member of the public is the real estate salesman who lost a sale.

It is obvious to see who this legislation the MAR is wanting to see is designed to serve and we, in Missouri, must continue to feed these truths to the public and to the state congress by every means available to us.

[bjones1]

Thank-you James. interesting reading

Brian Jones