I've always been comfortable around technology (having sold enterprise-wide software applications for Fortune 500 companies for many years) so when new hardware and software becomes available that appears that it might make the real estate sales process easier and/or more efficient, I'm all in (assuming that it makes sense, of course)!  Smartphones, tablets, and faster cell/wi-fi have escalated the possibilities to a new level, regardless of your business -- the new world is all about being mobile, and being able to be responsive to clients, no matter where you are.

A couple of years ago, the ability to sign documents digitally became more common, and the software evolved to allow documents to be easily moved from person to person without the need to print, sign or complete, scan, and email or fax back -- saves time, paper, and is convenient so it speeds up the process. All good so far!  Then the software utilized for real estate contracts (ZipForms by ZipLogix) migrated to the iPad and other tablets so the process could be replicated from out in the field -- great concept, but poorly executed, unfortunately.  

Standard contracts and documents that originate on the mobile device can be easily prepared for electronic signature and distributed to the appropriate people.  But if a person or entity (escrow, for example) emails a document that needs to be e-signed by a client, the software has no way of importing the document into the application.  Oddly enough, the desktop version of the software has that capability -- so if I'm in my office I can easily save the file in DropBox, import the document, set it up for electronic signatures, and send it on its way.  But if I'm in the field, it becomes a cumbersome work-around process (but can be done).  If the developers would simply build a link in the iPad software to access DropBox (sort of the de facto cloud-based file manager) then it would be the perfect solution.  The work-around involves remotely controlling my laptop (assuming that it's on or hasn't gone to sleep), importing the document into the desktop version of the software, and then switching back to the iPad app to set up the document for electronic signatures.  I've tried, unsuccessfully, a couple of iPad file manager apps that theoretically allow one to upload files from DropBox into iPad websites, but the contract software appears to be too "locked down" to allow it to function with these apps (iUpload and iCab).

To complicate matters, some companies (lenders and escrow companies in particular) are beginning to utilize encrypted email systems.  So each email they send requires a login/password to the app to retrieve the email and/or attachment (oh joy!).  If the email is in a PDF format, then it's usually not a problem (unless it's in the ever-annoying legal size - a blog for another day) -- but if in another format, EML, for example, then it must be opened in a 2nd app (Klammer).  To compound the issue, many companies that send a lot of documents utilize high-speed scanners that push the documents out to their email system rotated 90 deg off of the standard portrait mode.  So potentially a document must be opened from within a secure email environment (yet another login/password combo), downloaded to a 2nd app just to open it, and then re-opened from within a 3rd app (GoodReader) to rotate the document so it can be easily read and/or acted upon -- all of which is very time consuming.  And if the document needs to be signed, then it has to be saved to DropBox, and the remote control process noted in the paragraph above paragraph has to be invoked.  And then back to the iPad software to set the document up for electronic signature.

So the next time that you receive a document for electronic signature, know that it may have traveled through a few processes before it got to you -- but it sure is "convenient", ha ha!

On several occasions I've written about Chapman's proposed expansion from its current cap of 8,700 students to its proposed cap of 11,650 students.  The college has recently backed off a bit from that, due to an outcry from the community which extends well beyond the Old Towne Orange area.

But are they really backing off, or just taking a breather?  They've indicated that they will continue to move forward with additional on-campus housing -- a good start but as noted in prior posts, they're a long way from being able to make even a small dent in the need for on-campus housing (about 3,200-3,300 beds shy!).  And they haven't backed off from wanting to expand the student population from 8,700 to 11,650 -- just postponed it.  Get ready for a confrontation, because it's going to happen.

A Pattern is Emerging...

I was looking at some articles from the past -- and Orange/Chapman University have been down this path before, and it's eerily similar to what is happening now:

• Chapman proposes expansion
• Public outcry ensues
• Chapman retreats
• Chapman ultimately quietly prevails

Don't believe it?

Read the two articles below, one from 2003 and the other from 1989.  "Deja vu all over again".  The citizens of Orange need to be on their toes, as this proposed expansion may be the deal-breaker.

Like many in Old Towne Orange, I've been following with interest the news regarding Chapman University's proposed expansion.  I'm not anti-Chapman University, but I'm not in favor of them expanding beyond their current student body count -- even with additional student housing.  While it's probably a little too large for the area now, there's likely no putting the genie back in the bottle at this point, so I think it's best to construct additional on-campus housing and absorb as many of the students into that environnment as possible.

And I have to say I'm at least mildly offended by the cartoon that accompanied a recent editorial piece in the Panther (a copy is in the upper left corner of this post).  The residents of Old Towne Orange have worked extremely hard over the past 30 years, in both time and treasure, to restore the beautiful homes found throughout Old Towne.  If the students of Chapman spent a few years stripping paint, sanding floors, fighting termites, running back/forth to Home Depot, painting (and then painting some more!) they might have a better appreciation of why the local population is resisting additional expansion into our quiet community (and might reflect some of the same haggard characteristics of the old guy in the cartoon!).

A little math:  Chapman can currently only house, on campus, approximately 40% of it's current capped population -- a total of 3,480 students.  To house 85% of its students, again at the current cap, they would need 7,395 beds -- a deficit of 3,915 beds!  The two largest proposed Chapman housing projects of which I'm aware -- one Chapman owned and the other a private enterprise -- only add about 685 beds, and are years away from approval/ground-breaking/completion.

In neighbor-to-neighbor meetings, and various other Chapman-sponsored meetings, they often reference the Claremont Colleges and how the students all live harmoniously with the residents in a similar historic community.  I graduated from one of the Claremont Colleges -- there's a huge difference -- the biggest of which is that approximately 95% of the students live on campus, in college-owned housing.  From U.S. News and World Report:

- Claremont McKenna College - 94% of students live on campus
- Scripps College - 96% of students live on campus
- Pomona College - 98% of the students live on campus
- Pitzer College - 100% of full time students required to live on campus
- Harvey Mudd - 98% of students live on campus (www.collegeexpress.com)

So a goal of 85% is actually a little underwhelming.  Sizewise, the combined enrollment of all of the Claremont Colleges is slightly under Chapman's current cap (about 7,500 students), so it can be done with the proper planning and build out.  The result -- most student life, including the after hours partying, is retained within the campus walls.  The students are happy, and more importantly, the property-tax-paying residents are happy.

So Chapman, build more on-campus housing (without destroying existing historic structures and neighborhoods) and settle into being a comfortable size and a good neighbor -- then we'll all be happy.

Our neighborhood gets it share of door-to-door solicitors, as I'm sure does yours.  After 20 years of answering the door, I'm at the point where I'm firm but polite -- "no sale here!" (save for the occasional girl scout cookies or wrapping paper from one of the neighborhood kids).

But the other day the doorbell rang, I answered the door, and then found myself doing something that I've regretted ever since.  

The man at the door was an older gentleman, polite, had a clipboard of some sort, and he could see that I was ready for battle.  We got right to the point.  He wanted me to sign a petition to get an initiative on the ballot requiring any state bond expenditure over $2B to go to the voters first -- he used the example of the bullet train, of which I'm not a big fan.  Sounded legit enough (although I got to thinking later -- wasn't the bullet train on the ballot and voters approved it? Hmm).  in any event, after asking him a few more questions, I signed the petition on his very official looking forms and he went on his merry way.

Later, I got to thinking -- couldn't I have "signed" that petition online?  If the guy was legit, no problem -- but if not, he now has my name, address, and signature (which is easily scanned) and could later be used for nefarious purposes.  Probably the easiest identity theft job ever!

Hopefully, it won't come to that.

Now I'm even more jaded when it comes to those door-to-door sales folks. The next one doesn't stand a chance-- unless they're selling Girl Scout cookies, of course! Then it's me that doesn't stand a chance!  :-)