This is an extended response to “concerned citizen,” who commented at length on my Loudoun County Tax Assessor Todd Kaufman has a friend post. The nom de poltroon “concerned citizen” may or may not be a sock puppet for Todd Kaufman himself, but it sure reads that way to me.
Does not Mr. Kaufman have the First Amendment right to complain to the Realtor board? And does not the Realtor board have the duty to investigate whether there are false facts published?
Don’t be absurd. You’re attempting to reframe the debate to portray Kaufman as the victim. What we have is a case of abuse of office, a government functionary attempting to abrogate the free speech rights of an innocent citizen. The Bill of Rights exists to protect citizens from government.
The price for Mr. Kaufman exercising his rights, even if misguided, should not be ridicule
To the contrary, this is the exact and perfect price, firmly established in the history of satire in America.
and exposure of personal information.
Straw Man Fallacy. Did not happen, at least not in anything posted on the RE.net.
It comes across not so much as openness as exposure for further personal attack by others by way of letters to his home, phone calls and the like.
Straw Man Fallacy again. We have done nothing of the sort. This may in fact be the Well-Poisoning Fallacy.
It also distracts from the issue, which is, I think, whether any false information was published to consumers.
The issue is Mr. Kaufman’s ham-handed attempt at censorship. Period. He made a bone-headed mistake, and he is paying the exact and perfect price for doing so. If you are his friend, you could help him find his way back to the light.
Arguments pro and con in this matter should be couched in terms of truth or falsity of the blogger’s work,
False. The right to free speech includes the right to be wrong. Your instant quibble will be to resort to libel or slander, but those are civil torts, to be adjudicated in a court of law. Absent proof of damage or malice, people in the United States are free to say or publish whatever they want, even if it is factually incorrect, physically impossible, fantastic, surreal, satirical or absurd. Land of the free. Get used to it.
the argument that Mr. Kaufman is an ass for protesting is not an argument at all and concerns itself with the suppression of disagreeable speech or speech from individuals deemed unworthy of a voice by virtue of their profession.
False. Lampooning overreaching public functionaries is a proud American tradition.
I do not know whether this blogger published false information but for argument’s sake IF it was false, is this protected by the First Amendment?
Just as much as is all this specious nonsense you stayed up all night writing to try to muddy the waters in Mr. Kaufman’s defense.
A Realtor blog is used for marketing and if a member of a Realtor organization publishes false information, doesn’t the Realtor organization have the duty to act against the member under their code of ethics?
No, Todd — it’s you, isn’t it? — the NAR Code of Ethics does not exist to abrogate the free speech rights of Realtors. That would be the job of rogue government functionaries — which is to say the miscreants we are protected from by the Bill of Rights.
The Realtor organization acting under its code of ethics cannot be said to be the government acting to suppress speech.
Straw Man Fallacy. What we are discussing is an attempt by Loudoun County Assessor Todd Kaufman to use the threat to bring a Code of Ethics complaint against a Realtor — that is, to threaten that Realtor’s livelihood — in an attempt to force that Realtor to remove perfectly lawful published content.
To clarify, what we are objecting to is abuse of office by a public functionary — a bald attempt at censorship which should be abhorrent to any American and especially repellent to people from Virginia, home to George Mason, father of the Bill of Rights.
I apologize for this rather long comment but I think matters of free speech require a bit more consideration.
I view anonymous pecksniffs with a cold contempt, a presumptive imputation of cowardice. Anonymous publishing is a common characteristic of police states, and the beauty and glory of free speech in America is that we do not have to hide from the state behind phony names like “concerned citizen.” We have not just the lawful right but the affirmative duty and obligation to be concerned citizens in the United States, and the appropriate way to do this is proudly — pledging our lives, our property and our sacred honor, if it comes to that — but to do it in the full light of day, in our true names. This is a proud lesson we learned from another Virginian, Thomas Jefferson.
That’s as may be. I believe you are Todd Kaufman himself, covering for your shame and ignominy by trying to put someone else in the wrong. Even if you are not he, this is a mistake. What Todd Kaufman did was wrong. Not an outrageous and irredeemable evil, but an extreme transgression of American principles. No doubt he feels he is getting worse than he gave, but, where his perceived injury was local and particular, the offense he chose to make in retaliation — the threat to censor — is a threat to us all, not just real estate webloggers but every free citizen of the United States. The response he has seen so far is nothing like what he deserves for threatening to brow-beat a publisher into silence, and it were well for Kaufman to consider what fate might await him should the more-popular media discover what he has done.
But that’s all one, too. In fact, what Mr. Kaufman should do is back down and apologize at once. Not because he has been lampooned, and not because his lampooning could become much more comprehensive. He should back down and apologize because he is indisputably in the wrong. Government functionaries do not have the right to limit the free speech of citizens, and threatening the livelihood of a publisher is abhorrent, repellent, insufferable. It is exactly the kind of conduct that the American Patriots and hundreds of thousands of patriots since then fought and died to prevent from taking root on these shores. Mr. Kaufman has set himself in opposition to the most important philosophical principles upon which the American experiment was founded, and the American citizenry has not just the legal right but the absolute moral obligation to eliminate this criminality with every weapon at its disposal. If we are not willing to fight for our rights when fighting for them is relatively easy — as in this dumb show against a very dumb political hack — what will we do when the going gets tough?
To say the truth, I love this kind of theater, but it’s because I know that the First Amendment was written to protect people like me and Russell Shaw. We are exactly the kind of jackasses the less-cowardly-Kaufmans of the world would jail or kill if they could get away with it. Who does the Bill of Rights protect? I never have to ponder that question. I owe my continued life and liberty to men like George Mason. In any conflict, I will always take their side.
Stand down, Mr. Kaufman. You cannot win this battle, but you can succeed in making yourself look even more-publicly more ridiculous.
Technorati Tags: blogging, real estate, real estate marketing
Jeff Brown says:
Why you gotta be so logically rational? 🙂
January 6, 2008 — 1:40 pm
concerned citizen says:
Point of history:
Many of the Founding Fathers, and patriots throughout history, wrote using pseudonyms. In fact, one of the fathers of the US Constitution, James Madison, with Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, published the Federalist papers under the pseudonym “Publius”. These men were hardly pecksniffs. Your denigrating characterization of my “handle”, if that is the appropriate term of art these days, shows a misunderstanding of the fundamental purpose of, and protection accorded, anonymity as it applies in a free society against those systems deemed tyrannical and oppressive. You might also read Kierkegarrd’s views on anonymity and the universal human, if you are of a philosophic mind.
Be that as it may, to the issues.
First, Mr. Kaufman’s right to object. You have not denied that Mr. Kaufman has the constitutional right to object and/or file a complaint. If you say he’s does not have the right to object, I shall have no need to return to a discourse with you. Boiling off your patriotic rhetoric, your objection comes down to his “ham-handedness” in complaining, as you call it, which addresses the manner of his expression of the right but not the right itself. Surely, you are not suggesting that Mr. Kaufman’s right is forfeited either because he is a public official or a heavy handed ass who does not know how to use a telephone to privately resolve an issue affecting the constituency of taxpayers in his jurisdiction, one of whom, as I understand, made the initial objection to him. That seems to be an affordance of this constitutional liberty based upon one’s dress code or manner of speaking. I agree with your characterization of his ham-handedness but do not see it as so vile a sin as to cut off his right to raise an objection. Unlike you, I forgive his improper decorum for the sake of a fundamental right.
Next, the merit of Mr. Kaufman’s complaint. Do you foreclose the possibility that there may be merit to Mr. Kaufman’s objections? That maybe the blogger got it wrong, as one of your writing staff, Mr. Brady, has indicated? Maybe Mr. Brady has taken the time to investigate the taxing mechanism in that county. Are you privy to the inner workings of the assessor’s office to lay judgment that Mr. Kaufman has no leg to stand on. If not, you do him an injustice by demanding he stand down.
As a concerned citizen, should you not rightly afford him the chance to come forward with his evidence of mistake? If there is no merit, he walks away the fool. And if there is merit to the objection, then what? Surely, you would not protest if the blogger made a correction, as I believe he would, being a man of seeming integrity. The point is we just don’t know until all voices are heard, facts are examined, and truth rears its head. To insist the Mr. Kaufman back down and withdraw his objection based on ham-handed bureaucratic bullying seems to suggest that he also forfeit his right to get to that truth. Here you are on the thin limb.
Finally, to the point of this individual blogger’s actions. Should we not justly view them in the context of his profession as a realtor speaking on a commercially oriented website? Being a realtor sworn to a code of ethics and other laws governing his profession, his business speech may be bound by rules of his chosen professional association, whereas others’ speech may not be. As I understand it, I may, as a member of the public, freely say that a neighborhood has a certain ethnic demographic, whereas a realtor may not. Both instances involve the same speech but the context differs. So too the result. Furthermore, if a realtor publishes false information on a commercial website, that speech, being of a business or commercial nature, may be legally regulated to prevent, for example, misrepresentation.
While I agree wholeheartedly with your patriotic fervor, the rhetoric ignores the particular circumstances of the case which involve, as I said, a realtor writing on a commercial site. Yes, I agree that in the abstract free speech allows for publishing, within limits, false information but I do not believe it allows a realtor to publish false information on his professional commercial website. A terrible analogy, I admit, but the car salesman is bound to tell me the accurate mpg on the automobile I wish to purchase and should not misstate it to win my business. My neighbor may freely lie as to its gas efficiency. Your reply does not make room for this distinction.
Finally, Mr. Kaufman realizes he, like any one of us, is legally powerless to remove what the blogger wrote; he has not asked for anything to be removed, to my understanding, and has thus objected to the realtor board. The realtor board, as a private company, is NOT bound by the First Amendment, which only applies to government. Is this not true? (you failed to answer this, I believe). An analogy is my religious affiliation. I may blaspheme according to my constitutional rights, but the church may justly excommunicate me. As a governing body of its voluntary members, of which the blogger is one, is the realtor board not within their rights to examine the allegations, consider both sides and make a determination, which may be adverse to the blogger on grounds of some breach of the code of conduct in the practice of his profession? Do you object to their regulation of their member in a commercial context? You seem unwillingly to let this system play itself out when you insist Mr. Kaufman withdraw. Again, because he is a bully. Hardly a good reason, I would argue. If right will out and the blogger is right, what has anyone to fear; why has anyone to insist on abdication by Mr. Kaufman?
As a postscript, I commend your Mr. Brady for standing bravely for the principles of free speech while acknowledging the possible legitimacy of Mr. Kaufman’s objections, rather than piling on, with you, in understandable support of a friend. Yes, let us all paint the bullying Mr. Kaufman’s picture on a donkey’s ass but let us not also paint our own.
My apologies once again for taking up your valuable comment space.
January 6, 2008 — 11:45 pm
Thomas Johnson says:
The locals call Loudoun County “LoCo” I think it apt that a LoCo resident has popped up to defend the indefensible- an assault on the 1st Amendment. If LoCo resident is Todd Kaufman, Loudoun County Tax Assessor, why hasn’t he addressed the the Real Estate Bloggers from his official position, and why haven’t we seen the Loudoun County Attorney File suit to save the county’s tax over-valuations from the nefarious Danilo Bogdonovich? Gregg, when you are taking flak, you must be over the target!
January 6, 2008 — 11:55 pm
Brian Brady says:
“That maybe the blogger got it wrong, as one of your writing staff, Mr. Brady, has indicated? Maybe Mr. Brady has taken the time to investigate the taxing mechanism in that county.”
I may not have understood what I read and heard, CC. Perhaps you can answer the one question that will get to the bottom of this:
Is there a statutory limitation on the mils rate in Virginia?
January 7, 2008 — 8:03 am
Tony Arko says:
There is no statutory limitation on the mils rate in VA but a bill was just introduced that will create one. There is however, a code that states the assessed values of the property in the state of VA will be 100% of their “market value”.
The original post was written to address the fact that many homeowners believe they were assessed at more than 100% of their market value last year and that given the continued drop in values this would occur again to an even greater extent this coming year. We (Danilo and I)wanted to make more homeowners aware of this fact and to prepare them for the day that assessed values come out in 2008.
We also wanted to make sure that our public officials in charge of assessing our property values (I am a homeowner of Loudoun County) will be held to the 100% rule. As a real estate agent, I have access to information that a homeowner can use to fight an assessment value they believe is too high. This is info that is not available on line because the county can take up to 6 months to update sales in the public records. With only a 3 week window in March available to a homeowner in which to protest an assessment, they are ill equipped to provide strong cases for lower assessments without the help of real estate professionals with access to the MLS.
With a two piece formula to generating real estate taxes (assessed value x tax rate), the government could leave assessed values at an artificially high rate (given that values have gone down 15% or more in most areas of Loudoun County) and therefore avoid facing the highly controversial and politically charged prospect of raising the tax rate.
It would be much easier for the government to over-assessed everyone, announce a small or no increase to the tax rate, give the few people who object to the over assessments a small window in which to make their case, throw a small bone to those that make a case for a lower assessment and continue spending at the current rate.
We had hoped make the government fiscally responsible by letting them know we were watching. We want them to have to do the same things we have had to do when the marketplace dropped 40% in units sold and 15% in price. Cut back, trim the fat, make do with less, be creative.
Were we being naive? I like to think not.
We never meant to misinform the public and it has been brought to our attention that one sentence in the post could be construed as misleading. We have since modified that sentence because we don’t want to be misleading and we are ethical, contrary to what Mr. Kaufman thinks.
It would be sad if every Realtor was brought up on ethics charges for putting one wrong number in a listing or in a post or in an ad. If that were the case then I don’t think there would be any members of NAR.
January 7, 2008 — 11:41 am
Thomas Johnson says:
“Many of the Founding Fathers, and patriots throughout history, wrote using pseudonyms.”
@LoCo CC: Point of history: Pseudonyms were used under a tyrannical monarchy because those who opposed the crown were hung as traitors. I assure you that no such fate will befall you on the RE.net. Just cowboy up, identify yourself and join the debate as a citizen, not a sock puppet.
@Tony Arko: Thanks for your clarification. This explains why Todd Kaufman, Tax Assessor Loudon County is so vehemently defending his appraisals. Realtors HAVE THE COMPS that can and will put his masters in hot water with the voters. If he can’t defend his over-valuations in the face of true market values (willing buyer, seller, blah blah) which Realtors can provide the public via MLS data, he could be in violation of his statutory requirements of valuing property at market value. If the statute requires 100% and he is running 130%, that implies that the citizens of Loudoun county are staring at a mil rate increase of 30% to keep spending without any budget increases from previous years. I can see it now: “Vote for me I raised your tax rate 30%, plus cost of living adjustments for county employees!” Voter backlash is very bad for political appointees and their continued employment.
Tony: prepare your postcards and ad campaign: “Complimentary assistance available for your property tax appeal! LoCo homeowners are about to be hit with a massive property tax over evaluation. We can help.”
BTW, we do this every year for our market.
This brings up another question, Tony. Without a limit on mil rate increases, what is to stop Todd Loudoun, Tax Assessor’s political masters from declaring a mil rate of 1000, or 100% of property value so they can “do it for the children?” It’s always for the children, don’t you know.
Why would any lender approve a mortgage in a jurisdiction that could effectively confiscate the collateral and void the lien as taxing authorities can do? I foresee a bright future for Todd Kaufman as the manager of tax sales for Loudoun County, or as he could be known as the LoCo Chief Confiscator. He could even get special training on marketing Loudoun County owned properties (would that be LoCo Opro’s?) from Danilo and you!
January 7, 2008 — 2:47 pm
concerned citizen says:
Indeed, Mr. Johnson. But, as you undoubtedly know, Loyalists, faithful to the crown, also penned with pseudonyms. The practice, as far as political writings are concerned, in any age, is as much for the purpose of saving one, and one’s family, from the personal attacks of fellow citizens, as it was to escape the gallows, and, in most quarters, equally to be avoided. It is an issue better explored, I believe, in terms of a minority voice expressing a view contrary to the majority. In any case, my reference to those heroic patriots was to rebuff Mr. Swann’s prejudicial remark that use of a pseudonym is a characteristic of cowards. Certainly, none of us would adhere to the notion that the patriots who used pseudonyms acted out of cowardice.
Further to the point, even in a democratic society, authors have used pseudonyms for a myriad of reasons, including to protect one’s privacy, another of the fundamental constitutional rights I would expect First Amendment advocates, such as yourself, and the moderator of this forum, to respect with equal verve and vigor. Mr. Swann’s fervent championing of one right, free speech, and abject disrespect of an equally fundamental right, privacy, indicates, to me, an incomplete understanding and appreciation of ALL American freedoms. Consequently, I am left with the Orwellian feeling that, in this regime, all dogs are created equal but some dogs are more equal than others. Pardon the parody. If you require a name for further discourse on the subject which brought me to this venue, I must respectfully decline and will withdraw accordingly. A prohibition against anonymity has not been made apparent to me, only a grudging acceptance, for which I thank Mr. Swann and ask that you tolerate in kind.
I might add that participants in this forum, albeit a minority, seem to delight in the disclosure and publication of personal information as part and parcel of this discussion of important ideas, with the apparent aim and desire to have derogatory remarks appear in the Google search machine in denigration of an individual, who, absent preponderant proof of ill motive, must be given the benefit of sincere doubt. Who among you will stand forth and say with utmost certainty that Mr. Kaufman is of ill intent? I would venture a guess that even the blogger in question would not impress such guilt upon the man. To presume innocence is a sign of compassionate intellect, character, and graceful humanity, which, regrettably, I find lacking in Mr. Swann. My apologies, sir. This rush to judgment and execution in the name of free speech, led by a rhetorician with a flag in one hand and a noose in the other, is quite ironic and, even to the grade school students of American history, a mockery of our democratic ideals and more resembling the practices of the tyrannical monarchies to which you refer. Not only is this a practice I find abhorrent, it profoundly underscores the need for privacy in this internet age. Be wary of what you desire in this brave new world in the name of “openness”. It is a term easily used to have you “surrender” freedoms that would have had to be forcibly taken from your forefathers at the barrel of a musket. Thus, Mr. Johnson, I will petition my privacy and would hold in great esteem your acceptance of it.
In closing, I enviously proffer the words of your renowned American satirist, Mark Twain (pseudonym of Samuel Clemens), who succinctly and eloquently makes my point:
“When you set aside mere names & come down to realities, you find that we are ruled by a King just as other absolute monarchies are. His name is The Majority.”
January 7, 2008 — 9:04 pm
Irene Thompson says:
At the risk of being on the receiving end of your vitriol, I must comment on “concerned citizen’s” follow up. Brilliant and on point.
The County Assessor’s writing may be aggressive and blunt, but his style should not deny him his right to request accurate information be posted on a website about assessments. True, the first amendment doesn’t limit protection to just truth, however, as a real estate professional, I would think Bogdanovic should take the necessary steps to ensure that what he’s writing is accurate. If not, then that doesn’t speak well of your profession.
As for the examples of misleading and inappropriate information, the County Assessor stated in his e-mail to Bogdanovic’s broker Ms. Jalufka that he provided her with numerous examples during their conversation. Why hasn’t she passed that information on to the realtor?
And just so you don’t accuse me of being him (because you seem to believe that he is lurking behind every blog comment that does not support your rant that he’s committed “an extreme transgression of American principles”), let me go on record to say that I am not the County Assesor. You have my name attached to this comment, no pseudonym. You even have access to my e-mail address which is legitimate. I am neither a realtor nor appraiser, but I do own my own home and have some layman’s knowledge of how assessments are done.
Ok – go ahead and blast me. With the exception of Brian Brady, no one who has dared speak up for the Loudoun County Assessor has escaped without receiving some nasty rebuttal.
January 7, 2008 — 9:27 pm
Greg Swann says:
Both “concerned citizen” and Irene Johnson provide excellent examples of the utility of the Well Poisoning Fallacy. No one here has revealed personal information about Todd Kaufman, nor has anyone “blasted” a commenter. The Fallacy Ad Hominem is forbidden at BloodhoundBlog, and for this reason “concerned citizen” will have to take his concerns elsewhere.
Inlookers, you have let yourselves get distracted, and this is a bad mistake. Whether or not the information Danilo published is factually correct is not at issue. The only issue is Todd Kaufman’s abuse of office by trying to force Danilo to remove that information by threatening his livelihood. Danilo has a right to be wrong. Kaufman does not have a right to try to bully a publisher, not under any pretext.
What you do, when you let temporizers like this muddy the waters, is lose sight of vital principles.
January 7, 2008 — 10:36 pm
Brian Brady says:
“With the exception of Brian Brady, no one who has dared speak up for the Loudoun County Assessor has escaped without receiving some nasty rebuttal.”
Irene, we seek the truth here. The fact remains that Mr. Kaufman has chosen the bully bureaucrat approach to the alleged (and I now say alleged) inaccuracy of Danilo’s conclusion. While there may not be a statutory limit on the tax rate, there may be political pressures (an imbalanced county budget) for Mr. Kaufman to “miscalculate” the assessments to run cover for poor budgeting.
I thought one of two things: Mr. Kaufman is a righteous jerk or Mr. Kaufman is a hmmm…..”influenced” political animal. I am using the Socratic method to try and understand the situation better. Now, my bias leans to the latter rather than the former.
There’s a simple solution; Mr. Kaufman can publish a public explanation. Irene, don’t you think the citizens of LoCo deserve as much?
January 8, 2008 — 3:36 am
Bob in San Diego says:
Brian, there is another solution. Danilo can demonstrate that the Assessment values are incorrect.
January 8, 2008 — 11:33 am