cowpie51: No, you can't blame bureaucrats on this one. I'm sad Marla got treated the way she did, but some FM rules are good as they level the playing field and make sure customers know what they are getting, produce grown by the farmer in the booth selling it; hence the term Farmers Market. We've been taking our fruit that we personally grow and pick to farmers markets for 2 years now. However if I had to compete with farmers that buy their fruit at the wholesale market, which some unmanaged markets allow, and then resell it at their booth giving the unspoken illusion they personally grew it, I couldn't compete. Is it fair that a person can go to a wholesale produce market, buy a variety of inferior product (because that's why it's sold wholesale) and then sell it at a FM booth giving the illusion they grew it while the farmer in the next booth grew and personally picked all of their produce fresh that day and has to sell it at the same price that the "wholesale" retailer in the next booth does just to get the "less informed public" to come to their booth? No. If you want to blame someone, blame those that are fraudulently selling produce they didn't grow. I have yet to see any FM booth advertise that they didn't grow what they are selling. If folks wanted mass-produced produce that looks pretty on the shelf but has no flavor because it was sprayed with a variety of pesticides and fungicides and picked before it was ripe and sold to a wholesale market, they'd go to a grocery store. Sorry for getting on my soap box, but there are times when rules are a good thing and the Farmers Market is one of those places. Each vendor signs a contract and for those that don't think the rules apply to them, all I have to say is they are wrong.

Yes, yes, yes! That is ridiculous! I interviewed 5 realtors. All were very nice and had extensive experience in my neighborhood. But only 3 showed up prepared with materials. And only ONE of those actually pulled correct comps and knew what she was presenting to me (as opposed to having her assistant do it and not looking at it until she was showing it to me). That was the one I picked and boy, has she stayed true to her word. She's done everything I've asked. We've changed wording and photos multiple times and she always gets it done same day. She's got her own website in addition to the MLS and she has all sorts of things there as well. When I requested flyers, she had them done and printed within 48 hours! She had my floor plan done before I listed, photos up the day of, and professional photos and 360 views the first week (would have been sooner, but I wasn't ready yet!). Speak up, tell him you're disappointed, and ask him present a marketing plan immediately.

I'm reading the original post and I see someone who thinks everyone is overpriced. I look at that and wonder how she came to that conclusion. Are the houses she's looking at listed with realtors? If so, wouldn't someone think comps were done to arrive at the listing price? Wouldn't the realtor check the local MLS to see what sold and for how much before arriving at a price? Or have times changed so much that the owners now tell the agents what to list the house for? When I read where people say a house is "overpriced" all I see is them saying they wouldn't pay that much, but somebody else may see it as a bargain. I'll give you an example. About a half mile up our road is a very nice modular cape that's about 4 years old. It's nicely landscaped and has a 2 car garage and an enclosed breezeway from the house. It was listed at $299,900. My wife said "they're nuts to ask that much!" Well, I saw the realtor's ad in the local paper, and there it was. The photo and the caption: "Sold in seven days!"

May I suggest that you keep things in perspective, folks? If you spent years in post-secondary education and had some interim jobs before getting on career track and really hot (I thought that I wrote "got") going at 30, and now at 60 are looking at retirement, whether voluntarily or forced ... you've had a 30 year career. Take it from this guy who was 90 last year ... you may be retired as long as you worked! Have you heard which segment of life has been the fastest growing, in our part of the world, in recent years? The folks over 100! (Granted ... the calculation started from a not-large base). The early years of retirement are expensive, what with all of that pent-up energy being released in kicking up your heels, running around and having fun ... then come the middle somewhat quieter, more relaxed (thus somewhat less expensive) years. Possibly somewhat enhanced, finance-wise, by downsizing from major house to more modest digs, thus freeing up some meaningful assets for investment. Usually there are substantial costs associated with the latter years of our lives, living in a retirement home, then assisted care, and then nursing homes ... and while one can sing while there, if one chooses - you don't get to stay there for a song! Many advisors suggest that a substantial portion of money which you don't expect to need for about ten years or more can well be invested in qualty eguities. Eating my own cooking, as I do - well over two thirds of my investments are equity-based. Most of the mutual funds, most held for a number of years, charge about 2% a year as management fees. ETF fees are substantially lower. Over half of my portfolio is in individual stocks owned directly. One that I bought over 50 years ago for $4,25 a share, paying 10 or 12 cents a year dividend, was (supposedly) "worth" $107. in 3007, paying $3.08 dividend. I don't know what "worth" is - what I mean is that that is the price for which I could have sold it at that time. The price available in 2008 dropped to $40., as that company was heavily involved in the financial fiasco operational at the time. Should have had the courage to buy more (at what precise time, pray tell?) ... but didn't. Some said they'd cut dividends: they didn't, but there was no increase for 4 years. Share prices grew to around $120. a few months ago, payng $5.76 annual dividend - recent offer is about $68. Estimate cost in a year just over $100. Over those 50+ years of ownership - haven't paid a nickel to any manager's fee. May invest some soon, some more later: no one knows where the bottom will be. In what I think to be a more valuable company for the price. Many advisors suggest to invest equal number of dollars on a regular interval, called "dollar cost averaging": one gets fewer shares when prices are high, more when prices are low. Good wishes for making wise use of your dollars in a long-term plan. Better to have dollars left at the end of the years ... than years left at the end of the dollars! Who'll then pay for the funeral/plot/headstone? ole joyful