In Missouri, it’s an eye-opener that companies managing homeowners associations (HOAs), condominium associations, and subdivisions are not required to hold any type of state license—not even a real estate broker’s license. Yet, just across the river in Illinois, community association managers must be licensed under their Community Association Manager Licensing and Disciplinary Act. This gap in regulation here in Missouri leaves condo owners and homeowners vulnerable, particularly when it comes to the management of large associations that handle millions of dollars in dues and are responsible for common ground and major infrastructure like private streets and utilities.
Think about it: a property manager overseeing a single rental home for an individual must be a licensed real estate broker—subject to audits, escrow requirements, and consumer protections. Meanwhile, someone managing a 300-unit condominium development or an entire subdivision, receiving and disbursing hundreds of thousands of dollars, is subject to little oversight beyond general contract law and, if needed, civil lawsuits. There’s no mandated education, no licensing, no formal fiduciary standard, and no real consequence for poor management short of costly, time-consuming litigation initiated by the homeowners or the association.
Unfortunately, this lack of accountability can have very real consequences. I’m currently dealing with a situation where a St. Louis County occupancy inspection cited an issue with the electric service—a repair that was clearly the condominium association’s responsibility. Here we are, nearly three months later, and the property management company has only managed to get a couple of bids—no repairs have been completed, the unit remains vacant, and a tenant I had lined up has now moved on. It’s not just my financial loss; this kind of mismanagement ultimately hurts all unit owners by negatively impacting property values and undermining the reputation of the community.
It is surprising—and concerning—that Missouri has not stepped up to at least require some form of licensing or regulation for community association managers. After all, protecting homeowners’ investments is critical, and the stakes for mismanagement of a multi-million dollar community are arguably much higher than for a single rental property. Until the laws catch up, property owners need to be extremely diligent when selecting and overseeing their association management companies, because for now, in Missouri, “buyer beware” applies just as much after closing as it does before.
If you’re a homebuyer or seller in the St. Louis area, heads up—there’s something going on in Washington that may affect your next move in a bigger way than you think.
The Department of Justice just appointed Roger Alford to a top antitrust role. He’s not a household name, but he’s someone who’s been deep in the fight over real estate commissions and how homes get marketed. He played a key role in the massive $1.8 billion verdict in the Sitzer/Burnett case here in Missouri—where a jury said real estate commissions were being artificially inflated by the industry.
So what’s this mean for you?
In plain terms: the way homes are bought and sold is changing, and the DOJ is pushing that change forward. We’re likely to see pressure to break down rules that limit how sellers can market their homes and how buyers find them—especially when it comes to FSBO (For Sale By Owner) listings. Alford’s already criticized laws that block FSBO sellers from advertising on big platforms like Zillow and Redfin. That’s good news for consumers who want more options.
We’re also likely to see more flexibility in how commissions work. That doesn’t mean agents go away—it means buyers and sellers might have more say in what they pay, and how they structure their deals. And the agents who are upfront about costs, focus on value, and act as true advisors—not just middlemen—will rise to the top.
The DOJ has its sights set on rules and practices that limit competition, like the MLS Clear Cooperation Policy and others that were designed to protect the system as it’s always been. Alford’s appointment is a signal that the government wants to open that system up and give consumers more control.
Here in St. Louis, we’ve already seen how these national issues hit close to home. So if you’re in the market—buying or selling—this is the time to work with professionals who get it. The landscape’s shifting. The old ways are under pressure. And the best agents are the ones leaning into change, not resisting it.
At MORE, REALTORS®, that’s how we operate. We’ve always believed in transparency, client-first service, and helping you make smart, informed decisions—whether you’re working with one of our experienced agents or going the FSBO route and just need the right support. If you want a real estate experience that respects your choices and puts your interests first, we’re here to help.
There’s been a significant appointment at the Department of Justice that should grab the attention of everyone in the real estate industry. Roger Alford, a Notre Dame law professor with deep antitrust experience and a key expert witness in the 2023 Sitzer/Burnett case against NAR, has been named Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the DOJ’s Antitrust Division. That’s a strong signal of where things may be heading.
Alford has made his views on NAR’s practices clear—particularly the Clear Cooperation Policy and MLS rules that tie access to REALTOR® membership. In his testimony and published work, he’s criticized these as tools to maintain monopoly control, limit competition, and prevent innovation. With Alford helping lead the Antitrust Division, it’s likely we’ll see increased federal pressure on longstanding industry practices.
Here in the St. Louis metro area, MARIS—our regional MLS—has taken a forward-looking stance. MARIS, which serves the metro and surrounding areas, has been actively working to address key issues early and stay ahead of regulatory changes. As Vice Chairman of the MARIS Board, I’ve seen firsthand the effort to prioritize transparency, flexibility, and broker protection while preparing for what’s ahead.
Real estate is changing fast, and those who adapt will thrive. At MORE, REALTORS®, we continue to push for transparency and consumer-first practices while equipping agents with tools and coaching to compete in this evolving landscape. Stay tuned—we’ll be ready for what comes next.
Today, the National Association of REALTORS® (NAR) announced significant changes to its controversial Clear Cooperation Policy (CCP). After months of debate and scrutiny—from brokers, MLS leaders, agents, and legal experts—NAR introduced the new “Multiple Listing Options for Sellers” policy, which aims to address concerns around consumer choice and market fairness.
I’ve written extensively on why the original CCP faced such strong opposition, notably in my recent article highlighting attorney Michael Ketchmark’s explicit warning to NAR brokers: repeal CCP or face legal action. Ketchmark, lead counsel in the landmark Sitzer lawsuit, clearly indicated that maintaining the CCP could trigger antitrust lawsuits against individual brokers who supported it.
The new policy announced today appears to be NAR’s attempt to address these legal pressures while preserving some of the original intentions behind CCP.
Under the updated policy:
Sellers can now opt for a “delayed marketing exempt listing,” allowing the listing agent to temporarily withhold public marketing through IDX feeds or third-party syndications.
During this delayed period, properties remain accessible within the MLS, enabling agents from other brokerages to share these listings privately with clients.
Each local MLS will determine its own delayed marketing timeframe, catering to regional market needs.
Sellers choosing delayed marketing must sign a disclosure confirming their informed consent to delay broader public exposure.
Notably, NAR also clarified that one-on-one broker communications won’t trigger CCP’s requirements, but multi-broker communications remain classified as public marketing.
While the new policy does introduce more flexibility, from my perspective, it may still miss the mark. In my recent article, I proposed a more balanced solution: creating an “MLS Exclusive” category. This would mandate inclusion of listings within the MLS to ensure broad exposure among professionals, but without public syndication to Zillow, Realtor.com, and countless other public sites. This approach effectively balances privacy needs with fair competition—avoiding potential antitrust pitfalls.
The new NAR policy seems like a half-step toward that goal. It introduces valuable flexibility but still leaves questions about privacy and antitrust vulnerability unanswered. While delayed marketing might address some concerns, it stops short of fully embracing a robust, MLS-exclusive alternative.
As this policy rolls out nationwide—with implementation required by September 30, 2025—it’ll be critical for MLSs, brokers, and agents here in St. Louis and across Missouri to carefully evaluate the implications. The legal landscape remains sensitive, and industry professionals would be wise to consider whether this new policy fully addresses potential legal challenges or merely delays them.
The National Association of Realtors (NAR) is on the verge of making a pivotal decision about its controversial Clear Cooperation Policy (CCP)—a rule requiring listings to be submitted to a multiple listing service (MLS) within one business day of public marketing. Now, attorney Michael Ketchmark, lead counsel in the landmark Sitzer lawsuit, has issued a stark warning: if NAR brokers vote to maintain the rule, he may take legal action against them.
Ketchmark, in an interview with Inman News, made his stance clear: “It’s my expectation that after this meeting, when this comes to a NAR vote overall, that they’ll do the right thing and remove that policy and let the free market continue to work.” He added that if the rule remains, his firm will scrutinize the motivations of those involved and determine whether anti-competitive behavior is at play. “We’ll take the depositions of the people involved and figure out exactly why they did that and what was the motivation behind it, and then make a decision at that point on how to proceed,” Ketchmark told Inman.
Legal Pressure Mounts Against NAR’s Listing Rules
The Clear Cooperation Policy, introduced in 2020, was originally designed to increase listing transparency and prevent pocket listings, which some argue allow brokers to double-end deals at the expense of consumer choice. However, opponents—including brokers, agents, and consumer advocates—argue that the rule violates antitrust principles by forcing listings into MLSs, thereby restricting homeowner control over marketing strategies.
NAR’s recent $418 million settlement in the Sitzer and related lawsuits has already forced major industry changes, including the decoupling of buyer agent compensation from listing agreements. Now, Clear Cooperation is in the crosshairs as another rule that may not withstand legal scrutiny.
Ketchmark emphasized that his issue is not with NAR itself, which he acknowledged has upheld its obligations under the settlement. Instead, his focus is on individual brokers who would vote to uphold the rule. “I don’t want anybody to suggest or think that I’m threatening the National Association of Realtors,” Ketchmark said, “but what I am saying is that whoever is voting to continue and enforce this rule, if we believe that it is done with anti-competitive goals in mind, that we will take their depositions and will hold anyone who is involved in that responsible.”
A Better Alternative: ‘MLS Exclusive’ Listings
As the debate over Clear Cooperation continues, one practical alternative gaining traction is an “MLS Exclusive” listing category. This approach would require all listings to be entered into the MLS, ensuring maximum exposure to real estate professionals while addressing seller privacy and security concerns.
Unlike traditional “office exclusive” listings—where properties are only shared within a single brokerage—MLS Exclusive listings would still be accessible to every licensed real estate professional in the MLS. For example, in the St. Louis area, MARIS (Mid-America Regional Information Systems) serves over 16,000 real estate professionals, all of whom would have access to MLS Exclusive listings.
This means that a seller’s property could still reach a vast network of professionals actively working with buyers, without being publicly displayed on thousands of websites like Zillow, Realtor.com, or IDX feeds on brokerage sites. For sellers who value privacy—such as high-profile individuals, those facing personal security concerns, or those in sensitive situations like divorce or estate sales—this provides an ideal balance between market exposure and confidentiality.
This solution eliminates the anti-competitive concerns of private “pocket listings” while preserving the seller’s right to control how their home is marketed. It also ensures that real estate professionals remain central to the transaction, offering expert guidance to both buyers and sellers without unnecessary public exposure.
The Future of Clear Cooperation
With NAR expected to vote on the policy by the end of the month, the fate of Clear Cooperation—and potentially more lawsuits—hangs in the balance. If Ketchmark follows through with legal action, brokers who support keeping the policy may find themselves on the defensive in court. Meanwhile, the industry must consider whether MLS Exclusive listingsoffer a more viable solution that protects both consumer choice and market integrity.
Big changes are coming to Austin’s real estate market, and while they might seem far away, they could signal future shifts in St. Louis. The Austin Board of REALTORS® (ABoR), which owns and operates Unlock MLS (formerly ACTRIS), has announced that starting in June 2025, real estate agents will no longer be required to be REALTOR® members to access the MLS. This means agents in Austin can now choose whether or not to join the National Association of REALTORS® (NAR) while still being able to list homes on the MLS.
Could something like this happen in St. Louis? Not without a major decision from the REALTOR® associations that own MARIS. Unlike Austin’s MLS, which is controlled by a single association that made the decision to open access, MARIS is owned by multiple REALTOR® associations, including the St. Louis REALTORS®, St. Charles REALTORS®, and several others. For MARIS to follow Austin’s lead, these associations would need to collectively decide to remove the REALTOR® membership requirement for MLS access.
For buyers and sellers, Austin’s move could lead to lower costs, more competition, and different business models as some agents may no longer pay REALTOR® dues. Some argue this will create more options for consumers, while others worry about the potential impact on professional standards. While nothing is changing here in St. Louis yet, this move signals a shift in the industry that could eventually reach our market. Buyers, sellers, and investors should pay attention—real estate is evolving fast.
At MORE, REALTORS®, we stay ahead of industry trends so our clients get the best advice in an ever-changing market. If you’re thinking about buying or selling in St. Louis, let’s talk about how to navigate today’s market with confidence.
The real estate industry’s relationship with the National Association of Realtors faces mounting challenges as multiple lawsuits emerge nationwide. Texas broker Lou Eytalis recently joined others in challenging NAR’s mandatory membership requirements for MLS access (see lawsuit complaint below), with similar cases in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Louisiana. These suits coincide with controversy over NAR’s Standard of Practice 10-5, which has sparked First Amendment challenges from both brokers and agents who argue the rule improperly restricts speech by banning hate speech and discriminatory language on personal social media accounts.
These legal challenges come amid a turbulent period for NAR, which faces scrutiny over sexual harassment allegations, spending practices, and commission lawsuits. The Free Speech Coalition, representing real estate professionals across multiple states, argues that NAR’s speech restrictions exceed their authority and violate constitutional rights. Meanwhile, Eytalis and others contend the mandatory membership issue extends beyond fees – it’s about forcing change within an organization they believe has lost touch with members’ needs. While NAR maintains local organizations control MLS access rules, their intervention preventing Phoenix Realtors from offering membership-free MLS access suggests otherwise. The convergence of these suits – challenging both membership requirements and speech restrictions – represents growing industry pushback against NAR’s regulatory reach.
Today, we honor the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., a visionary who championed equality, justice, and the inherent dignity of all people. His fight against systemic injustices extended to housing discrimination, a battle that continues to shape communities across the nation, including right here in St. Louis.
Fair housing has been a cornerstone of efforts to ensure everyone has access to safe, affordable homes without fear of discrimination. Landmark legislation like the Fair Housing Act of 1968 is part of Dr. King’s enduring legacy, prohibiting discriminatory practices based on race, color, national origin, religion, and other protected classes. These principles are vital to fostering thriving neighborhoods and ensuring that homeownership opportunities are accessible to all.
At MORE, REALTORS®, we serve every client with fairness and professionalism, ensuring all buyers and sellers have access to expert representation and market insights. Whether you’re buying your first home or selling a property, we’re here to guide you every step of the way.
A recent lawsuit that reached the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and concluded with a ruling on January 14, 2025, sheds light on a significant issue for homeowners and REALTORS® alike regarding copyright infringement and the use of floor plans in marketing homes. The case, Designworks Homes, Inc. v. House of Brokers Realty, Inc., involved Columbia, Missouri-based House of Brokers Realty and other defendants, and revolved around whether real estate agents and brokers could use floor plans in marketing properties without infringing on copyrights. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the defendants, citing the fair use doctrine and affirming the district court’s decision.
The lawsuit originated when Designworks alleged that House of Brokers infringed on its copyrights by creating and sharing a floor plan for a property the brokerage was hired to sell. The court, however, determined that creating and using the floor plan constituted transformative use—it served a functional purpose of providing information to prospective buyers rather than copying the original design’s artistic or creative intent. This ruling sets a precedent, ensuring REALTORS® can continue using floor plans for marketing homes, benefiting both buyers and sellers by increasing transparency.
At MORE, REALTORS®, we understand the value of providing buyers with comprehensive information, which is why we often incorporate floor plans—such as those prepared alongside 3D tours—into our marketing strategies for sellers’ homes. Buyers gain a better understanding of the home’s layout, and sellers benefit from increased visibility and buyer interest. The full lawsuit details and judgment are available below for further review.
The Supreme Court yesterday declined to review the National Association of REALTORS’ (NAR) appeal to block the Department of Justice (DOJ) from resuming its antitrust investigation. This decision allows the DOJ to reopen its probe into NAR’s practices, including the Clear Cooperation Policy and the Participation Rule, both of which have been criticized for limiting competition in the real estate industry.
The Clear Cooperation Policy requires listing brokers to submit a property to their Realtor-affiliated MLS within one business day of marketing it publicly. This policy was intended to ensure transparency but has faced allegations of reducing competition and restricting options for consumers. The Participation Rule, which NAR recently eliminated as part of a separate settlement, previously required listing brokers to make a blanket offer of compensation to buyer brokers to list properties in the MLS. The DOJ had issued a subpoena in 2021 requesting extensive documentation on these rules, signaling its intention to assess whether they hindered fair market practices.
For St. Louis homeowners and investors, the outcome of this investigation could lead to significant changes in how properties are marketed and sold. It’s a reminder of the evolving landscape in real estate and the importance of staying informed. As always, MORE Realtors INLINE TEXT Link – goes to agent website MORE, REALTORS® is here to provide guidance and insights to help you navigate these developments. Contact us today to learn how we can help you with your real estate needs.
St. Louis lawmakers have introduced three significant bills aimed at increasing accountability for owners of vacant and deteriorated properties, building on the recent approval of Proposition V, which lifted a decades-old cap on fines for ordinance violations. With nearly 14,000 city properties having outstanding code violations and over 24,000 vacant properties in the city, these bills seek to address issues that have long plagued St. Louis neighborhoods.
The proposed legislation includes Board Bill 169, introduced by Alderman Michael Browning, which raises fines for vacant and deteriorated properties from $25 for the first violation to $100, with repeat offenses escalating to $250 or more. Board Bill 170, introduced by Alderwoman Daniela Velazquez, sets penalties for unsecured buildings at $500 for the first offense and $1,000 for repeat offenses. Additionally, it establishes a $30,000 fine or 50% of the property’s appraised value—whichever is greater—for unpermitted demolitions, with proceeds going toward the city’s Vacant Building Initiative Fund. Meanwhile, Alderwoman Pamela Boyd’s Board Bill 171 introduces a mechanism to add unpaid fines and abatement costs to property tax bills as liens, simplifying collections and ensuring enforcement. Together, these measures aim to deter neglect, reduce vacancy, and revitalize neighborhoods.
These new bills represent a direct effort to address the challenges highlighted during the campaign for Proposition V. St. Louis investors and property owners should take note of these changes as they signal stricter enforcement of property ordinances.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) has expanded its antitrust lawsuit against RealPage by naming six of the nation’s largest landlords as defendants, according to the amended complaint filed recently. These landlords are accused of participating in a coordinated pricing scheme that relied on sensitive competitive data and algorithmic pricing tools to maintain elevated rents, impacting millions of renters across the U.S.
The landlords named in the amended complaint—Greystar Real Estate Partners, Blackstone’s LivCor, Camden Property Trust, Cushman & Wakefield, Willow Bridge Property Company, and Cortland Management—operate more than 1.3 million rental units nationwide. The DOJ alleges that these landlords not only utilized RealPage’s controversial algorithm but also engaged in direct communication and user group discussions to share sensitive pricing strategies. For example, the DOJ highlighted instances where Camden executives communicated with competitors about planned rent increases and occupancy strategies.
In a move to settle with the DOJ, Cortland agreed to cooperate with the investigation, cease using competitor-sensitive data, and stop relying on common pricing algorithms. This consent decree is subject to a 60-day public comment period, after which the court may approve the settlement. The amended lawsuit underscores the DOJ’s commitment to ensuring a competitive housing market, stating, “Landlords must not prioritize profits over fair housing opportunities for renters.”
The Risks of HELOC Wire Fraud: A Case Study for St. Louis Homeowners
A recent lawsuit, Skertich vs. Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing and Alliant Credit Union, highlights alarming vulnerabilities in Home Equity Lines of Credit (HELOCs) when it comes to wire fraud. According to the complaint, a fraudulent wire transfer amounting to $425,650 was authorized using counterfeit documents and improper verification processes. Despite clear red flags, such as mismatched signatures and suspicious IP addresses, the financial institutions involved processed the transaction. This serves as a stark reminder for homeowners in St. Louis and beyond to exercise caution with HELOC accounts.
The case emphasizes the importance of robust security protocols. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants failed to have commercially reasonable systems in place to detect and prevent fraudulent activity. This situation escalated further when the victims were held liable for the unauthorized transaction, leading to increased balances and potential foreclosure actions. Homeowners utilizing HELOCs must regularly monitor account activity and promptly report any discrepancies.
For St. Louis area homeowners, this case is a reminder to protect your equity by using secure communication channels with your lender, reviewing monthly statements thoroughly, and inquiring about the security measures your provider has in place. The full complaint, detailing the allegations and implications, can be reviewed below.
—
If you’re navigating the complexities of homeownership in St. Louis, MORE, REALTORS® is here to guide you with expert advice tailored to your needs. Contact us today to stay informed and secure in your real estate journey.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has filed a federal lawsuit against Rocket Homes Real Estate LLC and the Jason Mitchell Group, alleging violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA). The complaint, filed in the Eastern District of Michigan, accuses the defendants of participating in a scheme involving kickbacks and steering practices that compromised the trust consumers place in their real estate agents.
According to the CFPB’s allegations, Rocket Homes pressured real estate agents and brokers to steer clients toward its affiliate, Rocket Mortgage, and other related services, often at the expense of offering clients competitive alternatives. The agency contends that such practices not only violated RESPA’s prohibition on kickbacks but also led to higher mortgage rates and fees for clients compared to those who shopped around independently. Additionally, the Jason Mitchell Group is accused of prioritizing referrals from Rocket Homes in exchange for providing referrals to Rocket Mortgage and Amrock, Rocket’s title and escrow service.
The full complaint, which provides detailed allegations and examples, is available for review below. For St. Louis area buyers, this case underscores the importance of working with agents who prioritize transparency and your best interests. If you’re looking for a dedicated team, MORE, REALTORS® is here to assist you in navigating the complexities of the market.
RealPage, Inc., a key provider of software solutions for rental property management, has filed a motion to dismiss the antitrust lawsuits brought against it by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and several states. These suits allege that RealPage’s revenue management software violates the Sherman Act by encouraging landlords to set higher rents. In its motion to dismiss, RealPage refutes these claims, arguing that its software operates within the bounds of the law and that plaintiffs fail to show sufficient evidence of harm or illegal coordination.
The crux of RealPage’s argument is that their software merely provides aggregated data and recommendations, leaving ultimate pricing decisions in the hands of individual landlords. They maintain that the data analytics tools help landlords operate more efficiently in competitive rental markets, rather than stifling competition as alleged. For rental property owners in St. Louis, this motion highlights the growing scrutiny surrounding automated pricing tools, which are widely used to manage rents effectively in a dynamic market.
While RealPage’s motion seeks to clarify and defend its practices, this case serves as a reminder for St. Louis landlords to carefully evaluate their own pricing strategies and tools. Whether you use software to determine rent adjustments or rely on local market trends, ensuring transparency and compliance with fair housing laws is more important than ever. As this legal battle unfolds, investors may want to keep a close watch on the implications for rental property management technology and regulations.
For tailored advice on navigating legal changes in the St. Louis rental market, the team at MORE, REALTORS® is here to help. Our expertise in market trends and compliance can help you maximize your investments while staying ahead of regulatory challenges.
You can read RealPages motion to dismiss, along with its 35 page brief in support of the motion, below.
The landmark settlement in the Burnett (Sitzer) v. National Association of Realtors (NAR) class action lawsuit has officially received final approval from U.S. District Judge Stephen R. Bough on November 27, 2024. This settlement is set to impact millions of homeowners across the U.S., offering substantial financial restitution and mandating significant changes in real estate practices. The full details of the court’s order and settlement terms are provided in the document below.
Judge Bough emphasized the fairness of the settlement, noting that it provides “substantial benefits to the class” while ensuring equitable treatment of all members. Over 491,000 claims have been filed as of November 14, 2024, with claims open until May 2025. Below are the key highlights:
Financial Compensation: Settlement class members who paid real estate commissions through any MLS-affiliated transaction are eligible for compensation.
Industry Practice Reforms: Changes include greater transparency in commission structures and improved practices across participating brokerages.
Comprehensive Notice Program: Nearly 40 million notices were sent, ensuring a broad reach, with over 300 million digital impressions.
Minimal Objections: Despite the large class size, only 39 members opted out, and objections were minimal.
Judge Bough described the settlement as “a significant and swift recovery for the Class,” underscoring its importance in resolving complex antitrust claims while avoiding protracted litigation.
For those in St. Louis, this settlement underscores the value of informed real estate practices. At MORE, REALTORS®, we are committed to transparency and exceptional service, ensuring buyers and sellers have the support they need in an ever-evolving market.
Learn more about the settlement and its implications by reviewing the full order below.
Burnett vs The National Association of REALTORS Settlement Order
A recent Notorious P.O.D. interview with Wilson Fauber, a Virginia real estate broker and ordained minister, has brought renewed attention to the National Association of Realtors’ (NAR) controversial Standard of Practice 10-5. The rule prohibits hate speech, epithets, and harassing language by Realtors® at all times, including outside their professional lives.
Fauber faces an ethics hearing over social media posts he made years before the rule’s enactment, including one quoting scripture. Supporters argue the rule ensures a welcoming environment for all, while critics believe it infringes on personal freedoms and is being selectively enforced.
Why This Matters to Agents
The case raises concerns about how far professional organizations should extend their oversight into private speech. With potential penalties including fines, loss of MLS access, and more, some see the rule as a necessary step toward accountability, while others view it as overreach.
As the real estate industry navigates these debates, Fauber’s case highlights a pivotal moment for Realtors® to reflect on the balance between ethical guidelines and personal freedoms.
Notorious POD: NAR Speech Code Strikes Again, with Wilson Fauber
The Department of Justice (DOJ) is turning up the heat on the National Association of Realtors (NAR) and the real estate industry at large. In a Statement of Interest filed in the class-action lawsuit Burnett v. NAR, the DOJ highlighted ongoing concerns about antitrust practices that could harm buyers, sellers, and competition within the real estate market.
The DOJ took particular aim at the current practice of unilateral offers of compensation to buyer brokers. These practices, the filing explains, pressure sellers to offer high commissions—often 2.5-3%—to buyer brokers to avoid “steering,” ultimately driving up home prices. This arrangement benefits neither buyers nor sellers, as it limits competition among brokers and prevents meaningful negotiations on fees.
Another area of concern is a proposed settlement provision requiring buyers and brokers to sign written agreements before any home tours. While intended to add transparency, the DOJ warns it could hinder competition among buyer brokers, making it harder for buyers to explore their options freely.
Importantly, the DOJ has not endorsed the proposed settlement in this case. Instead, it reserves the right to continue investigating and enforcing antitrust laws. Compliance with the settlement will not shield NAR or other entities from future legal scrutiny.
The DOJ’s filing serves as a reminder that transparency, competition, and fair practices are essential to keeping the real estate market accessible and equitable for everyone. For buyers, sellers, and agents alike, this case underscores the importance of choosing representation that prioritizes their interests over outdated or self-serving industry norms.
Department of Justice – Statement of Interest – NAR Settlement
A federal court recently denied a request from eXp Realty to pause ongoing litigation while a settlement in a related case was being finalized. This ruling highlights growing concerns over settlement practices in the real estate industry, particularly in cases involving alleged anti-competitive behaviors. Plaintiffs in the case argued that the proposed settlement in the related Hooper lawsuit failed to adequately address claims or consider eXp’s financial resources, potentially leaving affected homebuyers and sellers shortchanged.
For consumers, this decision underscores the importance of accountability and fairness in real estate dealings. As cases like this challenge longstanding industry norms, buyers and sellers should take the time to fully understand commission structures and ensure their agents are acting transparently. Staying informed about legal developments can help you make smarter decisions when navigating the complexities of real estate transactions.
At MORE, REALTORS®, we prioritize transparency and client-focused service, ensuring you always have the information you need to make confident real estate decisions. Contact us today to learn more about how we can help you.
The full court order detailing this decision is available below for those who want to dig deeper into the specifics.
ORDER – Gibson v NAR on eXp Realty’s Motion to Stay Case
In his recent article, “Repeal the Speech Code,” Rob Hahn has urged the National Association of REALTORS® (NAR) to reconsider its controversial Standard of Practice 10-5. This policy, implemented in 2020, prohibits REALTORS® from using harassing or hate speech, epithets, or slurs based on protected classes, such as race, religion, and gender identity, in both professional and personal settings. Hahn argues that while intended to promote inclusivity, the policy overreaches and restricts REALTORS®’ freedom of speech outside of real estate-related activities.
The case of Brandon Huber, a REALTOR® and pastor, illustrates Hahn’s concerns. Huber was penalized under Standard of Practice 10-5 after making statements as a church leader unrelated to his real estate profession. His case raised questions about the balance between personal belief expression and professional standards, with Hahn emphasizing that the Speech Code “tells members what they can and cannot say in their private lives.” Similarly, NAR has faced debates over whether misgendering or expressing personal political beliefs could be deemed hate speech, as highlighted in discussions covered by Inman News. REALTORS® questioned how subjective interpretations might lead to unintended disciplinary actions, such as mistakenly using the wrong pronoun or expressing certain religious beliefs.
Hahn argues that repealing Standard of Practice 10-5 would not only protect REALTORS®’ personal freedoms but could also avoid divisive conflicts within NAR’s membership. He warns that maintaining the Speech Code may alienate members and draw unwanted attention from a new administration focused on freedom of speech. As Hahn states, “The right thing to do is sometimes the smart thing to do. When that happens, the only thing to do… is to do it.”
The full text of Hahn’s article is available below for those interested in the broader implications of this policy on NAR’s members and the real estate industry.
Tanya Monestier, a tenured law professor at the University at Buffalo School of Law and former professor at Roger Williams University School of Law, has stepped into the Sitzer v. NAR lawsuit with a compelling and meticulously researched objection to the proposed settlement. Monestier, whose academic work on contract law and consumer protection has been cited by courts across North America—including the United States Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of Canada—brings a formidable legal background to her critique. Her objection portrays the settlement as a superficial, paper-only solution that leaves consumers vulnerable to the same anti-competitive practices it claimed to remedy. As Monestier puts it, “The settlement makes sense—but only on paper… In the real world, the implementation of the settlement has been a disaster.”
Monestier argues that the industry’s entrenched practices remain unchallenged by the settlement. Steering persists, commissions are still locked at 5-6%, and sellers continue to shoulder both agents’ fees, contrary to the supposed reforms. She warns, “What matters is how the settlement is being implemented in real life. And it is being implemented in a way that preserves the status quo of sellers paying both brokers.” Her objection underscores the reality that, rather than empowering buyers to negotiate their agents’ compensation, the industry has doubled down on its old ways, sidestepping reform.
Another alarming aspect of Monestier’s objection is her contention that the settlement introduces confusion instead of clarity, leaving both buyers and sellers struggling to navigate a complex, quasi-regulatory landscape. “As long as this is possible, the current system of seller-financed commissions will remain intact,” she argues, stressing that this agreement risks setting the industry back by reinforcing behaviors it purported to dismantle.
Monestier’s objection is a call to action for the court to reconsider the settlement’s adequacy and fairness, cautioning against accepting it at face value. She warns, “Unless someone speaks up, this Court is likely to be convinced that this settlement is ‘fair, reasonable, and adequate.’ It is not. It simply reinforces the existing system of seller-paid inflated compensation while pretending to eliminate it.” For those interested in the full details of her objection, the complete document is available for review below.
See the entire objection that Tanya Monestier filed with the court HERE
If your home contains Zonolite attic insulation (ZAI), which is known to include vermiculite contaminated with asbestos, you may be eligible for reimbursement through the Zonolite Trust Fund. This fund, created as part of the bankruptcy proceedings of W.R. Grace & Co., helps homeowners offset the cost of removing hazardous insulation. Below, we outline how you can file a claim and access the resources needed to ensure a smooth reimbursement process.
How to File a Claim
To receive reimbursement, you’ll need to provide documentation proving that vermiculite-based ZAI was present and has been removed from your home. Accepted evidence includes contractor statements, receipts, photos of ZAI packaging or insulation samples, and certified lab tests confirming vermiculite in your attic. If you haven’t yet removed the insulation, it’s crucial to retain detailed records from your contractor to support your future claim.
What You Need to Know
Claims can be submitted through the Zonolite Trust website, where you’ll find all necessary forms and instructions. Homeowners are reimbursed for 55% of their removal costs, up to a capped amount. Claims are processed on a first-come, first-served basis, so early submission is recommended to avoid delays. The trust aims to resolve claims efficiently while ensuring that funds are distributed equitably.
Helpful Resources and Full Procedure Below
For more information on the eligibility requirements and to access the official claim forms, see the links to resources below. Additionally, the complete distribution procedure from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court—detailing how funds are allocated—is provided below for homeowners and legal professionals. This document outlines the rights and responsibilities of claimants under the reorganization plan for W.R. Grace & Co.
Don’t miss this opportunity to recover costs and protect your home—file your claim today and ensure your insulation concerns are addressed.
UNITED STATES ZONOLITE ATTIC INSULATION (“US ZAI”) PROPERTY DAMAGE SETTLEMENT TRUST DISTRIBUTION PROCEDURES
On October 15, 2024, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) announced a settlement with Fairway Independent Mortgage Corporation following allegations of discriminatory lending practices, or redlining, in predominantly Black neighborhoods in Birmingham, Alabama. As part of the resolution, Fairway agreed to pay $8 million in relief and a $1.9 million civil penalty to address claims that it avoided providing credit services in these communities due to residents’ race and national origin.
The settlement contributes to the DOJ’s broader efforts through the Combating Redlining Initiative, which has secured over $150 million in relief since its inception. According to the DOJ’s findings, Fairway concentrated its retail loan offices in majority-white areas and allocated less than 3% of its direct mail advertising to Black neighborhoods. Fairway’s lending rates in these areas were significantly lower than peer lenders, prompting the DOJ and CFPB to act.
In addition to financial penalties, the settlement requires Fairway to establish a $7 million loan subsidy program aimed at providing affordable loans for home purchases, refinances, and improvements in Black communities. Fairway will also invest $1 million in programs to support consumer education, outreach, and partnerships with local organizations. The enforcement action underscores the government’s commitment to rooting out lending discrimination nationwide.
The initial complaint filed by the CFPB against Fairway Mortgage, is below.
For the past few years, the National Association of Realtors’ (NAR) Clear Cooperation Policy has been a focal point of contention, sparking debate across the real estate industry. The rule, which mandates that any property being marketed to the public must be listed on the MLS within one business day, was introduced with the intention of promoting transparency and ensuring equal access to listings for agents and buyers alike. However, the policy has faced consistent opposition from various quarters, with critics arguing that it hampers the ability of agents to serve their clients’ best interests and limits consumer choice.
As I have highlighted in previous articles, the real problem with this rule is that it imposes a one-size-fits-all solution on a very diverse set of circumstances. Agents with every intention of putting a listing in the MLS may find themselves constrained by the policy’s rigid timeline and prohibitions, limiting their ability to execute marketing strategies tailored to the needs of their clients.
A Misrepresentation of Intent
One of the most frustrating aspects of the debate around the Clear Cooperation Policy is the disingenuous portrayal of the issue by some proponents of the rule. They often frame the opposition as a desire to keep listings out of the MLS entirely, suggesting that agents pushing back against the rule are simply looking for ways to avoid sharing information. In reality, many agents, including myself, are primarily concerned with the restrictions the rule places on how and when we can promote a property before it hits the MLS.
For example, an agent might want to place a “coming soon” sign in a seller’s yard as soon as the listing agreement is signed, even if the seller isn’t ready to show the property for a few weeks. Or a seller may want to share on social media that their home will be available once a few repairs are completed. The Clear Cooperation Policy effectively bans such practices, even if the intent is to eventually list the property on the MLS. These restrictions can prevent agents from building pre-market buzz, which often results in better outcomes for sellers.
Where the Industry Stands
Currently, the industry is deeply divided over the Clear Cooperation Policy. Some argue that the rule ensures fairness and transparency, preventing large brokerages from “hoarding” listings and selectively sharing them only within their own networks. However, opponents see it as a top-down mandate that ignores the nuanced needs of clients and agents on the ground. This tension is playing out in various forums, with major industry players like Compass and Redfin publicly taking opposing stances.
Additionally, the policy has caught the attention of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and other regulatory bodies, adding a legal layer to what is already a complex situation. The DOJ has reopened its investigation into NAR’s policies, and many are watching closely to see whether the Clear Cooperation Policy might be revised or struck down as part of the broader antitrust concerns surrounding the real estate industry.
What’s Next for the Rule?
In my view, NAR is facing mounting pressure to adapt. While I don’t believe the Clear Cooperation Policy will survive in its current form, NAR has shown a stubborn resistance to change before. However, if they are smart, they will eventually recognize that the rule’s rigidness does more harm than good and will cave to the increasing calls for its removal. The reality is that as the market continues to evolve, the industry needs to be flexible enough to serve the interests of consumers and agents alike — and this policy is increasingly looking like an obstacle rather than a solution.
One potential outcome is that NAR will amend the rule to allow for more flexibility in pre-MLS marketing, which would still ensure the policy’s goals of transparency while respecting agents’ ability to promote listings in a way that benefits their clients. But whether this kind of change will be enough to quell the growing discontent remains to be seen.
The Bottom Line
The real estate industry thrives on cooperation, but cooperation shouldn’t come at the expense of consumer choice or the ability of agents to act in their clients’ best interests. Rather than a rigid mandate, we need a policy that adapts to the realities of the modern market. Until then, I’ll continue to advocate for changes that prioritize clients’ needs over bureaucratic rules.
St. Louis voters will have the opportunity to vote on Proposition V this November, a charter update designed to give the city stronger tools to hold negligent property owners accountable. Currently, fines for ordinance violations related to vacant and non-owner-occupied deteriorated properties are capped at $500—a limit that has remained unchanged since the 1970s. Proposition V, introduced by Alderwoman Daniela Velazquez, aims to remove this outdated cap and empower the city to set fines that can be adjusted based on the severity of the violations.
The proposed bill, Board Bill Number 72, states that the cap has become ineffective over time, allowing large-scale absentee property owners to simply absorb the low penalty as a cost of doing business. If approved, Proposition V would allow the city to impose fines that scale with the severity of the violations, addressing longstanding issues of property neglect and disinvestment. The complete text of the bill is included below for readers to review in its entirety.
Alderwoman Velazquez highlighted the urgent need for change in a recent opinion editorial published in the St. Louis Business Journal. She pointed out that when first established, the $500 fine was a meaningful deterrent, equivalent to roughly $4,000 today. “Over time, though, the penalty has become negligible, and absentee property owners and landlords often find it easier to pay the fine than maintain their properties,” Velazquez wrote. The alderwoman argues that the inability to impose higher fines has left the city with few options to compel owners to maintain their properties, resulting in safety hazards, reduced property values, and diminished investment in many St. Louis neighborhoods.
While Velazquez asserts, “This isn’t just about penalizing landlords — it’s about securing the future of St. Louis,” the proposal has also raised concerns among property owners and real estate investors. Critics argue that removing the $500 cap could lead to overly punitive measures that deter investment in St. Louis. For small property owners or new investors, the fear is that unlimited fines could become unpredictable and potentially crippling, making it riskier to operate in the city. Investors worry that it might lead to an environment where even minor code violations could result in disproportionately high penalties, pushing responsible landlords out of the market and discouraging new investment at a time when St. Louis needs it most.
Proposition V is part of a broader effort to revitalize St. Louis and protect its neighborhoods. However, its impact on the investment climate in the city will largely depend on how these new fines are implemented and enforced. As Velazquez emphasized, the measure is meant to “stimulate growth, attract responsible investment, and ensure that all property owners contribute positively to the community.” For residents concerned about vacant and neglected properties, Proposition V could mark a significant step forward in making St. Louis a safer and more vibrant place to live, but the long-term effects on the real estate market remain to be seen.
The National Association of Realtors’ (NAR) Clear Cooperation Policy has been a contentious topic since its inception in 2019. The rule, which mandates that listings must be added to the MLS within one day of being publicly marketed, aims to provide transparency and equal access to all agents and homebuyers. However, as highlighted in anInman News article today, the policy is now facing strong opposition from major real estate firms like Compass and Anywhere Real Estate, both of which are calling for changes that would provide more flexibility to sellers.
This isn’t the first time the Clear Cooperation Policy has been challenged. I have previously discussed this issue in several articles, noting both the potential legal implications under the Sherman Antitrust Act and the practical impacts on homeowners trying to sell their properties effectively. While the policy aims to prevent “pocket listings” and promote fairness, some argue that it actually limits consumer choice by dictating how listings must be shared and marketed. As I mentioned in article I wrote in 2020 about the new rule, New Rule Will Require REALTORS Put All Listings In The MLS Or Not Market Them, while transparency is essential, homeowners should have the flexibility to choose a marketing strategy that best suits their needs.
At MORE, REALTORS®, we adapt to these regulations by leveraging our advanced digital marketing expertise to ensure sellers still get top exposure and results within the constraints of current rules. So, while changes to NAR’s policy may be coming, you can count on us to navigate these shifts and maximize your home’s potential.
There was an opinion piece published today on Inman News by Eric Bramlett that suggests that fears of a widespread shift in commission payments from sellers to buyers are overblown. Bramlett argues, “Sellers are primarily concerned with the net proceeds they’ll receive and the overall terms of the contract.” While I agree that many sellers will still “pay” the buyer’s agent commission, I don’t believe the traditional commission structure will endure. In fact, the St. Louis Association of REALTORS® is in the process of updating the forms that most of the St Louis area REALTORS®, including listing agreement. In this updated version, the seller will only be charged commission for the listing agent, with no provision for offering commission to a buyer’s agent. However, I expect that in many cases, buyers will negotiate for the seller to cover their agent’s commission as part of the overall deal—bringing more transparency to the process and putting the negotiation front and center.
As I’ve emphasized in prior articles about the NAR/Sitzer settlement, the real impact of these changes will be in how commissions are discussed and handled, not whether they are eliminated. This is a pivotal time for agents to educate their clients on the evolving commission landscape, ensuring buyers and sellers both understand who is paying for what and why. At MORE, REALTORS®, we’ve been preparing for this shift, and we’re committed to guiding our clients through these changes with clear communication and expert advice.
St. Louis’ connection to the Manhattan Project might be a footnote in history books, but for residents of North County, its legacy is still felt today. Decades after uranium processing for the first atomic bombs took place at Mallinckrodt Chemical Works in downtown St. Louis, the environmental and health effects continue to affect North County communities.
The Manhattan Project’s Reach in St. Louis County
During World War II, Mallinckrodt processed uranium for the development of atomic bombs, storing the radioactive waste near the St. Louis Airport and along Latty Avenue. Unfortunately, the waste wasn’t properly contained, which led to contamination of Coldwater Creek—a waterway that runs through Hazelwood, Florissant, and several other North County communities.
In 1973, some of the radioactive waste was illegally dumped at the West Lake Landfill in Bridgeton. Over the years, concerns have mounted regarding the contamination’s role in increased rates of rare cancers, birth defects, and autoimmune disorders among residents living near Coldwater Creek.
Superfund Sites and Ongoing Cleanup Efforts
Coldwater Creek and the West Lake Landfill have both been designated Superfund sites by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), indicating the need for extensive, long-term cleanup. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has been working on removing contaminated soil, having cleared over 1 million cubic yards so far. However, concerns about lingering contamination remain, especially after recent tests found radioactive materials at a North County elementary school.
Local groups like “Just Moms STL” continue to push for more recognition of the health impacts and further efforts to clean up the area. The full extent of contamination is still being investigated, with estimates suggesting that up to 80,000 people may have been affected by exposure to radioactive materials.
Warning Signs and Real Estate Impact
In response to ongoing health and safety concerns, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has recently installed warning signs along Coldwater Creek to alert the public to the risks. While these signs are crucial for safety, they bring a new wave of attention to the environmental hazards in North County—something that’s likely to influence the real estate market.
Health concerns: The increased awareness of contamination and its potential health impacts could lead to further hesitation among homebuyers, particularly families.
Property value declines: Homes in affected areas may see their values drop as the stigma around contamination grows, and real estate transactions may slow as buyers tread carefully.
Uncertainty for the future: While cleanup efforts are ongoing, it’s uncertain how long it will take to fully remediate the area—or whether full remediation is even possible.
What Homeowners and Buyers Should Consider
For those considering buying or selling property in North County, it’s critical to be aware of the legacy of contamination from the Manhattan Project. Real estate transactions in these areas will likely be impacted by the environmental concerns, and both buyers and sellers should work closely with agents who understand the unique challenges of the market in this part of St. Louis County.
At MORE, REALTORS®, we’re dedicated to providing you with the latest information and helping you make informed decisions about your real estate investments. Reach out to us if you have questions about buying or selling in North County or if you’re curious about how the cleanup efforts might impact your property.
The Federal Reserve made an important announcement today that could have a ripple effect on the real estate market in St. Louis and beyond. In their latest meeting, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) decided to lower the federal funds rate by half a percentage point, bringing the target range down to 4.75% to 5%. This move comes as the Fed notes continued solid economic activity but acknowledges that job gains have slowed, and inflation, while improving, still remains above their 2% target.
For homebuyers and real estate investors, this rate cut could lead to a slight reduction in borrowing costs, making mortgages a bit more affordable. However, the broader economic outlook remains uncertain, as the Fed continues to carefully monitor inflation and employment levels. As always, real estate professionals and buyers alike should keep a close eye on these developments, as any future shifts in rates could further impact the housing market.
During times of economic uncertainty, working with a trusted local real estate professional is more important than ever. At MORE, REALTORS®, we pride ourselves on staying ahead of market trends and providing expert guidance to our clients. Whether you’re a first-time buyer or a seasoned investor, our team is here to help you navigate these shifting conditions and make smart, informed decisions.
Stay tuned for more updates, as this decision could have further implications for our local St. Louis market in the coming months.
A significant change in property tax law took effect in Missouri on August 28, 2024, offering financial relief to many of our senior residents. The newly implemented Homestead Property Tax Credit is designed to help senior citizens manage their property tax liabilities more effectively. Here are the key points of the new law:
Eligibility: Missouri residents who are 62 years or older, own their home, and are liable for real property taxes.
Credit Amount: The credit equals the difference between the current tax liability and the tax liability during the taxpayer’s initial credit year.
Local Adoption: Counties can adopt the credit through an ordinance or a voter-approved referendum. The Homestead Property Tax Credit operates under a simple premise: protect senior homeowners from rising property tax liabilities. For eligible seniors, the credit stabilizes the tax amount payable to the figure from their initial credit year, shielding them from subsequent increases. This means if the property tax rises after a senior’s initial credit year, the tax burden will not.
For implementation, each county has the option to either pass a local ordinance or bring the matter before voters with a referendum. If approved via referendum, the ballot will pose a straightforward question about exempting seniors from increases in property tax liabilities due on their primary residences.
How Does the Homestead Act Work?
The Homestead Act plays a crucial role by defining the ‘homestead’ as the primary residence of the taxpayer, where the tax credit is applied. Here’s how it works:
Tax Stabilization: Once a homeowner qualifies, any increase in property tax assessments will not affect their payable amount, unless there’s new construction or improvements on the property.
Adjustments for New Improvements: If an eligible taxpayer makes improvements to their home, the tax liability will adjust accordingly for that year but will stabilize again for subsequent years.
Impact of Annexation: If a home is annexed into a new taxing jurisdiction where previously no real property tax was owed, the initial credit year’s tax liability will adjust to reflect the new obligations.
Helpful links to counties that have implemented the program already:
City of St Louis (program applications are closed until March 2025)
St Louis County (program is waiting on staffing and setup but you can sign up for email status notifications)
St Charles County (program applications are closed for 2024 tax bills)
This initiative not only offers financial relief but also promotes stability and predictability for seniors in managing their most significant investment—their home. As counties begin implementing these changes, it’s essential for residents to stay informed about how these adjustments could benefit them personally. For additional insights on navigating property tax changes or purchasing a new home, consider reaching out to our experts at MORE, REALTORS®. Our seasoned team is committed to providing tailored advice that protects and enhances your real estate investments.
Missouri Online Real Estate, Inc. 3636 South Geyer Road - Suite 100, St Louis, MO 63127 314-414-6000 - Licensed Real Estate Broker in Missouri
The owner and authors this site are providing the information on this web site for general informational purposes only and make no representations, warranties (expressed or implied) or guarantees of any kind whatsoever, as to the accuracy or completeness of any information on this site or of any information found by following any link on this site. Furthermore, the owner and authors of this site will not be liable in any manner whatsoever for any errors or omissions in information on this site, nor for the availability of this information. Additionally the owner and authors of this site will not be liable for for any losses, injuries or damages in any way from the display or use of this information or as the result of following external links displayed on this site, or by responding to advertisements displayed, or contained, on this site
In using this site, users acknowledge and agree that the information on this site does not constitute the provision of legal advice, tax advice, accounting services, investment advice, or professional consulting of any kind nor should it be construed as such. The information provided herein should not be used as a substitute for consultation with professional tax, accounting, legal, or other competent advisers. Before making any decision or taking any action on this information, you should consult a qualified professional adviser to whom you have provided all of the facts applicable to your particular situation or question. None of the tax information on this web site is intended to be used nor can it be used by any taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.
All of the information on this site is provided as is, with no assurance or guarantee of completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of the information, and without warranty of any kind, express or implied, including but not limited to warranties of performance, merchantability, and fitness for a particular purpose.
This site contains external links to other sites not owned or controlled by the owner of this site, therefore the owner of this site does not control or guarantee in any manner the accuracy or relevancy of any information obtained through following such links. Links contained on this site are for users convenience and users should exercise extreme caution when following links. Including a link on this site does not constitute an endorsement of the site linked to or any views or opinions expressed on the site, products or services offered on outside sites or the companies or organizations that own and operate outside sites.
This site may accept payment for advertising, for displaying advertisements, through affiliate relationships with companies or may receive referral fees or commissions from companies as a result of recommending or referring people to a website. This site may also accept free product samples, free services, gift cards or cash to review a product or service. All paid and sponsored content may not always be identified as such. Any product claim, quote or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer or provider.
Today, we honor the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., a visionary who championed equality, justice, and the inherent dignity of all people. His fight against systemic injustices extended to housing discrimination, a battle that continues to shape communities across the nation, including right here in St. Louis.
