Continue reading »]]> In April of 2007, I was involved in a six-car pileup on the freeway. I was car five of six. Emergency services were required for the driver of the vehicle in front of me. The remainder of the individuals involved were able to walk or drive away from the accident. As you’d imagine with an accident of this nature, there was much wrangling with insurance companies. Except for the driver behind me – she didn’t have car insurance. As a result, damages to my car, which was totaled, were not covered. I won a judgment against the driver in the car behind me, and had the opportunity to obtain restitution. But, “blood from a turnip” was a piece of advice that stuck with me. My insurance company covered damages to the vehicle immediately in front of me, and the claims were closed in the middle of 2007. Or so I thought.

Fast forward two years to April of 2009. I receive correspondence addressed to “whom it may concern” from the local municipality that provided emergency services. The correspondence explains Minnesota Statute § 415.01, subd 2, allows cities to charge for emergency services to non-residents if they pass a city ordinance authorizing such action. If payment is not received within 30 days, Minnesota Statute § 366.011 provides a city may use lawful means to collect the debt, and Minnesota Statute § 366.012 provides a city can certify unpaid amounts against real property owned by the debtor. The correspondence goes on further to explain that such an ordinance was passed by the city in January of 2007 and provides that each party in an accident shall pay $350 per hour per fire department vehicle. Within the correspondence is a bill for $350 for a “Fire Service Billing” and a suggestion to submit a claim to my insurance company.

Needless to say, I was not happy. I didn’t yell or scream, rather I took the high road and wrote a letter to the city fire chief explaining my position. I did this within a week of receipt of the initial correspondence. I explained that I received no emergency services, and that in fact, I was not approached or assisted by the fire department, and that I suffered no injuries in the accident, and my vehicle was not at risk of fire. I also explained my belief that billing over two years after an accident was not fair nor equitable governance by the city, and that the suggestion to submit a claim to my insurance company two years after the claim was laughable. I further suggested that six vehicles times $350 per vehicle resulted in $2,100 collected for a six vehicle accident that involved no fire, no threat of fire, and a single injury (read back surgery aggravated). I explained I found it difficult to understand how the fee was equitable when the fire department provides similar services and often more services to most in the city through annual property taxes of less than $2,100.00 per year alloted to fire services.

I did not hear from the city, and believed they had reviewed my correspondence and decided that my position was correct, and I should not be assessed the $350. Imagine my surprise this morning, when I received notice that the city would be increasing the fee to $510, and assessing the full amount against the real estate where I live. I immediately wrote to the fire chief and the city administrator via email expressing my disbelief that they did not reply to my correspondence, and instead increased the fee and were going to assess the property where I live. I also explained that they were assessing property that I did not own, but rather were assessing property in which I am a tenant. Interestingly enough, the property is owned by a local law firm [imagine the letter they wanted to send to the city]. The fire chief responded to my email and said that they city’s position is that even though over two years passed, there was not a statute of limitations and I was a party at the scene and “it was determined by the responders through a visual observation or verbal contact with you that you were ok, however we did respond, we did check on you, and the city incurred an expense providing a response.” My thought: I’m glad that you responded, but to send me a bill for $350.00 to visually observe me standing in the ditch of a freeway (they didn’t get within 50 feet of me), and mentally note I looked okay seems excessive. The position of the city is that I received a service (they looked at me apparently from 50 feet away), and thus am responsible for payment of the fee.

In reading the Minnesota Statutes and the City Ordinances, the city is correct in their position. I did receive the service (if you call visual observation from over 50′ away service), and they are within their rights to charge me a fee for this service. I have since written to the finance director of the city to arrange removal of any assessment against real estate not owned by me (interestingly, the city assumed that since I live in a house, I must own the property), to arrange a reduction in the fee to the $350 (which was increased by my non-payment predicated by their non-response to my dispute), and to arrange my payment.

I’m still quite perturbed by this situation, and still am tossing around the idea of taking the city to small claims court. It seems a person can get in an accident, be seen from a distance at the scene of the accident by emergency personal, and receive a bill for services rendered in the amount of $350. To make matters better, it’s all within the rights of the city. However, it sure seems like a financial fishing trip by the city. If I would have received the invoice within a timely manner (say 90 days), I certainly would have been more willing to make full payment. However, two years later? If I pulled a stunt like that in our business, I’d be out of business in no time at all.

The bad news is that I’m going to be $350 lighter thanks to the city. The good news is that I’m now familiar with this practice, and have vowed that I will do something about it. My plan is to work directly with my State Representative and State Senator to get the statute amended to include language that claims for emergency services rendered must be made within 90 days by the agency providing said services. I’m not sure what the results will be, but it’s ridiculous that a city can send an invoice for an accident that occurred over two years ago.

Continue reading »]]> On the heals of declining revenues, eBay is beginning to refocus from online auctions to a “buy-it-now” platform.  From the article, I gleaned some interesting tidbits that apply to our traditional auction business.

But as the business of buying and selling over the Internet has matured, the thrill and novelty of auctions have given way to the convenience of one-click purchases. Hershenson will hold his last eBay auction June 3. “The auctions are nothing like what they once were,” he says. “They won’t ever come back.”

…

At the current pace, this may be the first year that eBay generates more revenue from fixed-price sales than from auctions, analysts say. “The bloom is well off the rose with regard to the online-auction thing,” says Tim Boyd, an analyst with American Technology Research. “Auctions are losing a ton of share, and fixed price has been gaining pretty steadily.”

…

What happened to auctions? Not only do shoppers want convenience, they’re also looking for value. And the proliferation of pricing information online has made it easier for consumers to bargain-hunt and lessened the need to risk overbidding in an auction.

As a traditional auctioneer, some of the above information is concerning to me.  However, most of the commentary doesn’t surprise me.  In fact, it confirms what I’ve believed for a few years.  The auction industry is completely different from what it was several years ago, and it needs to continue to evolve if it is to remain the first choice to for individuals to sell their assets.

“The bloom is well off the rose with regard to the online-auction thing.”  Scary.  The traditional auction industry has only begun to grasp the “online-auction thing.”  This year marks the first year where there are as many (or more) online only auctions in the local papers as there are live auctions.  The scary thing is that the bloom is off the rose for most industries, yet the bloom has only begun in the auction industry.  

“What happened to auctions?  Not only do shoppers want convenience, they’re also looking for value.”  This has always been true.  Nothing has changed here, except for a how much convenience “shoppers” want.  It used to be that an auction was a day long activity.  Buyers showed up early, and spent the day at the auction looking for value.  Now buyers show up minutes before their item of desire (if they know when it will sell), and leave shortly after the item sells.  In our experience, the majority of buyers leave an auction by 1pm – regardless of the start time.  We’re now experimenting with earlier start times (8:30 in some cases) to leverage this pattern.

I’m not completely convinced it’s the convenience factor that “happened to auctions.”  Rather, I am convinced it’s the busy factor of life.  Buyers overwhelmingly indicate they enjoy auctions.  However, they have so many other commitments (irons in the fire, if you will) that they cannot spend an entire day waiting for an item to sell.  Perhaps, this points to auctions being an inconvenient way to find value.  I’m not convinced.  If you can’t spend the day, all companies will allow a buyer to leave a bid on an item, and most will allow a buyer to bid via phone on an item.  In some instances, auctions include online bidding (pre-bidding), and live online bidding.  All are convenient ways to participate in an auction without the time commitment.

We’re continually looking for ways to adapt our business and increase the convenience factor while maintaining value for both our buyers and sellers.  Earlier start times are just one step.  Other steps we’re considering are the inclusion of online bidding (pre-bidding) on major items, and online only auctions (eBay style – despite the bloom being off the rose).  All three steps are an effort to make auctions more convenient to buyers, while maintaining prices for sellers.  I’ve got another idea that I’ll explore another time concerning “buy-it-now” options for live auctions.

Continue reading »]]> In the midst of the ongoing trade discussions of Santana to the Red Sox or Yankees, I’ve been following along with the Boston Globe and the NYTimes beat writers.  It has given me an entirely different perspective on the potential trade.

First off, these comments from the Globe gave me good perspective of the games being played:

We ran into Terry Francona, dressed in sweats, who was off to see a friend … he pleaded ignorance when asked if anything was going on. Pitching coach John Farrell also passed by, but said he had yet to be brought up to speed.

Yankees GM Brian Cashman, meanwhile, had yet to arrive. GM Theo Epstein and his aides have been holed up in the Sox suite, holding meetings and making phone calls, and there remains a school of thought that the Sox’ primary interest is driving up the price for the Yankees. One Sox type told me a little while ago that there may be more rumor than substance to what has been reported to date, which is par for the course at these things, though we are persuaded by our sources that Ellsbury and Jon Lester have been offered in different packages.

Now, the NYTimes:

The Yankees have agreed to include pitcher Phil Hughes in a package while the Red Sox have agreed to include center fielder Jacoby Ellsbury their offer. The Twins, who need a center fielder, rate Ellsbury as a better prospect than Hughes.

The rumor that the Sox may just be driving up the price doesn’t surprise me.  Yet, it’s a high priced gamble should the Twins call them on a potential bluff.  My take is that the Twins are more interested in Ellsbury than Cabrera.  All this talk about needing starting pitcher strikes me as a bargaining chip more than anything on the part of the Twins.  I’m mostly comfortable with a rotation without Santana but with Liriano.  It may be a step backwards, but the offense would be taking a massive stride forward.

Back to a potential bluff on the part of the Sox.  Perhaps, Bill Smith is playing the poker game.  So far he has successfully torqued off Steinbrenner and induced the Sox to include Ellsbury in a package.  Ellsbury would be an upgrade over Hunter and is a player that plays Twins baseball (that is he hits the gaps, swings for average or better, shows some power, has above average speed and is defensively sound) as opposed to Cabrera who is a more of a free swinger that hits for power, lower average but with very good arm strength (16 assists in ’07).  At the moment, I’ve got complete confidence in Bill Smith.  We’ll see how that plays out in the next few days.

On a side note – as of 3pm EST, Cashman still hasn’t arrived in Nashville:

No news yet on the Yankees and Santana, by the way. General Manager Brian Cashman took an afternoon flight from New York and has not yet arrived in Music City.

Things really won’t get boiling hot again until he has landed, made his way to the hotel and setup shop.  Then let the fun begin!