For one dollar you usually get a dilapidated house in a bad neighborhood you would be hard pressed to refurb and rent out profitably. If you demo it you have a small lot in bad neighborhood. This is in addition to the thousands in back taxes owed and whatever the housing enforcement requires you to do to make the house habitable per municipal code requirements or demolish it.
These can be great deals if the neighborhoods are being gentrified or the zoning can be changed, but it’s often a crap shoot, and the taxes will be due every year.
Here in Minneapolis, the city owns (usually through tax forfeiture) quite a few houses. and they are trying to sell them for very low prices – maybe $1, or maybe only the amount of back taxes.
But they come with quite a few conditions:
they have to be fixed up to meet code within a specific time period (usually 1 or 1-1/2 years). And since these are often abandoned or squatter homes, that can take a lot of work and a whole lot of money.
they have to be occupied and remain occupied for a specified period (usually 5-7 years).
they have to comply with the current zoning. Generally, that means keeping them as a single family home, not converting them into rental units.
These may be listed and sold through real estate agents. The city is taking a loss on the sale, but they are willing to do that to get the house fixed up and back on the tax rolls.
If they registered it as the name of their business, it’s a proper name. It’s like saying you went to a White Castle for a burger. You capitalize if because it’s the name of a business even though the words white and castle aren’t anyone’s names.
eta: I thought of a better example. If you make a living herding cattle, you’re a cowboy. If you make a living playing football in Dallas, you’re a Cowboy.
Good example showing that a proper noun can take the indefinite article.
I’m still not convinced that in the English language, a word’s being a trademark makes it a proper noun and so requires us to capitalize it.
I’m not sure what it would take to convince me, though. My basic thought is just a feeling of protest. “What gives them the right to dictate how I write?” I guess the answer to that question would have to involve a legal citation, or a citation of longstanding convention.
I don’t think there is a longstanding tradition that trademarking makes something a proper name. Something is a proper name or not simply based on how we use it in our language. The word “kleenex” can be used, according to the longstanding convention called “how people generally talk,” in a way that is not the way proper nouns are used. So it’s not one. Similarly regarding realtor.
Just to be clear here. They could fine you, a member of their association, for not writing it REALTOR. Me, as a private citizen, can write it realtor, rEaLtOr or however I want and they have no ability to fine me.
They’re not dictating how you write. It’s just one of the rules of how English is written. Realtors didn’t decide to capitalize their name to make themselves more special - they just followed an existing convention.
It’s like complaining who do those Dallas Cowboys think they are? They win a few Superbowls and now we’re supposed to capitalize their name? You can protest by calling them the dallas cowboys but people are going to think you’re the one who’s wrong.
As for trademarks, the rule is they’re supposed to be capitalized. It’s Coca-Cola and Toyota Corolla and Windows Vista and Big Mac. And when some companies haven’t been vigilant enough a trademarked name, like kleenex or aspirin or escalator, came become an uncapitalized generic term.
I never heard of the Cowboys ever expressing a requirement that I capitalize their name. It’s a name. I capitalize names. That’s just the convention.
I am not aware of any similar convention concerning terms like kleenex, realtor, and xerox. I know that there are preferences expressed by those who have trademarked the terms, but that is not the same thing as the existence of a convention in standard written English concerning capitalization.
That’s right; people would think I was doing it wrong. But who are the “people” who will think I’m doing it wrong if I write “realtor” with a small ‘r’?
All I’ve really been asking for is a cite of exactly this claim.
It all comes down to this. The Board of REALTORS wants us all think of them as something special, so would we please all capitalize the word. They have the ability to fine their members for not doing it. They can capitalize the word in all of their printed materials and TV ads. They can NOT force the rest of the world to follow their convention.
And, for those wondering about the history of the word.
So I guess they really do own the word and it is the same situation as Kleenex, Xerox and Google.
I think it really depends how it is used. I think it would be proper to say that realtor is a Realtor. When it is used to apply to a general profession (i.e., doctor, realtor, prostitute) it wouldn’t be capitalized. When it refers to their professional organization it would be.
I’m really having a hard time seeing what you’re saying. It’s not a similar convention - it’s the exact same convention. A person who plays for the Dallas Cowboys is a Cowboy. A person who works for the National Association of Realtors is a Realtor. Cowboy and Realtor are both trademarked names and both are supposed to be capitalized.
Kleenex and Xerox are trademarked names and they’re supposed to be capitalized just like you’re supposed to capitalize Big Mac or Pepsi or Prius.
That would make the word generic. Realtors would argue that not all real estate agents are Realtors just like not all colas are Coca-Cola. But if people start using the word realtor as a generic term for real estate agents then the actual Realtors might lost the trademark. This is what happened when people started using aspirin as a generic term for acetylsalicylic acid painkillers rather than as a specific brand sold by Bayer or when people started using zipper as a general term for a interlocking clothes fastener rather than as a specific brand sold by BF Goodrich.
Underlining added, commas added because spacing not retained in html.
You are wrong.
The process you are describing is common usage destroying the brand name. By people commonly taking the first or predominant brand and applying that as a generic for the whole class of objects, it is in effect devaluing the brand as a unique identifier. That is exactly what happened to Kleenex and Xerox, and neither of them is happy about it.
The thing is, on some level it seems a company might want you to think so highly of their product that you think of their brand name as the generic. But the thing is, that does not translate into only buying their brand. So instead of people saying “I need a kleenex” and meaning they only want a Kleenex tissue and won’t take a Puffs tissue, they mean “I need a tissue” and will take Safeway brand tissues or toilet paper rolls or even a paper towel, if that is what is handy.
Those companies have to have something like the above if they want to keep Safeway from marketing “Safeway kleenexes”. Regardless of how people at large think and speak. The trademark has almost gotten away from them. Now they don’t have any legal recourse against you for using kleenex as a generic in everyday speech. However, someone writing a movie or publishing a story might face litigation.
It’s kinda like Disney suing podunk daycare for using Mickey Mouse on its logo because if they didn’t, that could be used as legal defense for some other cartoon company claiming Disney has surrendered ownership.
Frylock said:
The convention is that those are supposed to be brand names, and the owners would like you to think about them as names, not generics, precisely to protect their brands. Xerox and kleenex have been partially absorbed as generics, and so has coke. The companies are expressing a “preference” that you respect their brand name as a name, not treat it as a generic class.
Tastes of Chocolate said:
Right, but then can sue you for infringement if you are a real estate agent that is not one of their members and you describe yourself as a “Realtor” or “REALTOR” or even a “realtor”. The situation is similar but not quite equivalent to Xerox or Kleenex, in that they are not quite as far down the trademark loss road, and they are trying to keep from sliding down the road. A Realtor is a member of the Board of Realtors. Anyone else is merely a real estate agent. Does that have any real meaning with regards to the quality of the service you will receive or their ability to perform the job? No. But the Board of Realtors would like you to think it is a licensing thing similar to doctors and lawyers.
HawksPath said:
You are wrong. A Realtor is a member of the Board of REALTORS. A “doctor” is a generic profession, but the generic profession is not “realtor”, it is “real estate agent”. That is the distinction that the Board of REALTORS is trying to defend. They want to keep it their special word, to set themselves off from real estate agents that aren’t members.
