Appendix

View manual & handbook content:

In the Appendix:

•	CCIM Logo
•	How to Address Letters
•	Actual Correspondence
•	Legislative "Call-to-Action"
•	Regulatory "Call-to-Action"

CCIM Logo:

The following guidelines explain the policies for using the name, logo, and other symbolic representations of the CCIM designation. Please review and follow these guidelines carefully.

•	Designees may display the CCIM logo without the phrase “Individual Member” on personal business cards and stationery if theirs is the only name printed.
•	The phrase "Individual Member" must accompany the CCIM logo on all corporate business cards and stationery whether or not the name of the individual CCIM designee appears.
•	CCIM Chapters and other groups authorized by the Institute may display the CCIM logo on appropriate materials and products.

Designees and Candidates
A CCIM (Certified Commercial Investment Member) is a designated member of the CCIM Institute. Only CCIM designees have earned the right to display the CCIM designation and logo. Candidates are members of the institute who are pursuing the CCIM designation. They may not display the designation or logo, and may not refer to candidacy status except in a manner approved by the Institute. Former designees may not refer to the designation, use the logo, or display any evidences of membership in the Institute.

The CCIM Designation
Only CCIM designees may place the designation after their names on appropriate professional documents.

How to Address Letters

State Senator
Honorable John Doe
State Senate
State House
Springfield, Illinois 62706
Dear Senator Doe:

State Representative
Honorable John Doe
House of Representatives
State House
Springfield, Illinois 62706
Dear Senator Doe:

Actual Correspondence

Please Forward a Copy of Your Letter to:

CCIM Institute
LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS DIVISION
430 N. MICHIGAN
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60611
OR FAX TO: (312) 321-4530

Although these actual letters are addressed to federal officials, you should use the same type of format to address those at the state and local levels.

February 28, 2001
Chairman Reed Hunt
Federal Communications Commission
1919 M Street. NW

Washington. D.C. 20554

Dear Chairman Hunt:

I am writing on behalf of the CCIM Institute to state our opposition to charging information service providers (ISP) access fees by local phone companies. Although, according to 62 FR 21, p.4711, sec. 285, the FCC is not currently proposing changes to the current system, we feel it important to state our position at this time.

Since 1969, the institute has conferred the designation of Certified Commercial Investment Member (CCIM) on qualified commercial real estate professionals. Recognized for its preeminence within the industry, the Institute’s curriculum represents the core knowledge expected of commercial real estate professionals. CCIMs form a business network of over 11,000 members encompassing 1,000 markets throughout North America.

CCIMs have been very progressive in the use of the Internet in their business activity. If local phone companies are allowed to charge these access fees, those increased costs would then be passed down to the user. To impose additional fees for the use of this tool would be detrimental for those doing business using this medium. We feel the current system is just.

We sincerely hope that the Commission formalizes its tentative conclusion that ISPs should not be required to pay access fees to local phone companies, and thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Darbin Skeans, CCIM
2001 President

Legislative Call-For-Action

To: CCIM Legislative Network
From: Hal Maxfield, CCIM Chairman, Legislative Affairs Committee
Sig Buster, III, CCIM, Vice Chairman. Legislative Affairs CommitteeDate: March 24, 2001

Re: CALL-FOR-ACTION: Capital Gains Legislation and Depreciation Recapture Rules

The CCIM Institute, in working with the National Association of REALTORS®, needs your assistance with a Call-for-Action. The Congressional tax agenda is coming together very slowly. As behind-the-scenes efforts continue, a problem with a capital gains cut for commercial and investment real estate has surfaced.

It has come to our attention through NAR that the Joint Committee on Taxation is likely to embrace a U.S. Treasury Department proposal that adversely changes the depreciation recapture rules for real estate. If there is capital gains tax cut, the proposed change, if adopted, would have the effect of taxing gains from real estate at higher rates that would apply to other capital assets.

This proposal must be stopped before it gains any momentum. Therefore, I must ask you to call your Congressman on the tax writing Ways and Means Committee TODAY and let him/her know that you are opposed to any changes to the long-standing depreciation recapture rules for real estate. Members of the Ways and Means Committee are listed at the end of this document.

Points you should make include the following:

1.	Real estate investors would be denied the benefits of capital gains reductions, while other assets, such as securities, would receive a rate reduction.
2.	The proposal adds even more complexity to an already complicated area of the Code.
3.	No unlocking of gain would occur in the real estate industry.
4.	The real estate industry is again (as in 1986) singled out to carry the burden of others' tax cuts.
5.	Very little appreciation has occurred in real estate markets since 1990. This recapture proposal further harms those markets.

The following are counter arguments that you may receive:

Q:	No tax bill is under consideration.
A:	We know, but if one were to appear we would ask that any changes to the recapture rules be kept out of the bill.
Q:	No bill has been introduced that would change the current rules on depreciation recapture.
A:	We are aware of this, but the reason for my contact is to let you know that we want to keep it that way.
Q:	No one is seriously proposing recapture changes.
A:	This is not true because the Chief of Staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation is making public speeches advocating changes to recapture, and Treasury Secretary Rubin has mentioned it in hearings.
Q:	Recapture is an abuse because you already get capital gains.
A:	These provisions have been part of the law for over 30 years. Besides, buildings do wear out, so that when you sell the building, the primary portion of the gain is in the land--which does not qualify for depreciation deductions.

ACTION REQUESTED:

Call your Ways and Means Committee Member no later than April 14, 2001 and let him/her know that you are opposed to any changes to the long-standing depreciation recapture rules for real estate. Please inform Charles Achilles at cachille@irem.org or at (312) 329-6020 if you are able to call a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Thank you for your assistance on this important public policy issue. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Cheré at (312) 329-6033.

Regulatory Call-For-Action

To: Legislative Affairs Committee; Legislative Bulletin Recipients

From: Hal Maxfield, CCIM, Chairman, CCIM Institute Legislative Affairs Committee

Date: September 9, 2001

Re: Preemption of Local Zoning Regulation of Satellite Earth Station

Implementation of Section 207 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996

***ACTION REQUIRED BY SEPTEMBER 27, 2001***

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPR) on August 6 regarding the rights of' viewers in apartment communities to install on balconies or windows, satellite dishes of one meter or less in diameter without prior approval of the property owners. In addition, the FCC might require apartment owners to install a larger community-type dish or antenna on the roof and then provide feeder lines to each apartment that asked for this service at a reasonable cost to residents. It appears that at this point the FCC is looking to override owner/renter agreements.

In the rulemaking issued on August 6 which banned most zoning and homeowners' association restrictions but side-stepped the renter/owner issue, the FCC noted the more than 450 individual letters it received from apartment and building owners.

If the FCC decides to rule that residents have a presumptive right to install their own satellite dish or demand a signal from a rooftop antenna, you could effectively lose total control over your property with respect to the installation of satellite dishes (or possibly other types of antennae). Clearly, the FCC needs to hear from the real estate community on this matter. Our goal is to initiate a strong and diverse response from the real estate industry. And to let the FCC know why residents should not be given special rights to receive over-the-air signal transmissions without prior approval or agreement with the property owner.

Action needed; Send your comments on the rule to Acting Secretary Caton at the below address. A "Points to Consider" fact list follows for your consideration when writing your comments. If you have previously written to the FCC on this issue, please write again! Please keep the following in mind:

Comments are due at the FCC no later than September 27, 2001.

Send an original and six copies of your letter to the FCC on your business letterhead, for each property you own or manage. FAXES WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED.

Refer to IB Docket No. 95-59, Preemption of Local Zoning Regulations of Satellite

Earth Stations, and CS Docket No. 96-83. Implementation of Section 207 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, when writing your comments.

Send comments to the following address:

Hon. William F. Caton
Acting Secretary
Federal Communications Commission
1919 M Street, NW, Room 222
Washington, D.C. 20554

Be sure to include your name, business, and address on all correspondence.

Be sure to send (or fax--#312-661-1786) a blind carbon copy of your letter to the CCIM Institute to the attention of Charles Achilles.

If you have any questions regarding this Call-for-Action, please contact Charles Achilles at cachille@irem.org or at (312) 329-6020.

POINTS TO CONSIDER:

PREEMPTION OF LOCAL ZONING REGULATION OF SATELLITE EARTH STATIONS

IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTION 207 OF THE TELECOMM. ACT OF 1996

Suggested Comments

This rule will adversely affect the conduct of our business without justification and needlessly raise additional legal issues.

This rule would infringe on private property rights. The government should not interfere with the right of an owner to protect his/her property from actions, such as unlimited installation of satellite dishes, that could result in a decrease in the value of the property and cause safety and/or security problems.

The aesthetic issue is not the only issue of concern, but neither is it a trivial issue. Aesthetics are important to the value of a property and are already regulated in many areas. Aesthetic considerations have definite economic ramifications.

This rule raises safety issues for our industry. Improper installation, weight or wind resistance of a satellite could create safety concerns to passers-by should the dish fall.

Installation of satellite dishes may also create structural problems. Damage to the property due to dish installation may cause water leakage into the building, corrosion of metal mounts or weakening of concrete. Any of these could lead to additional safety hazards and very costly maintenance and repair.

Technical limitations of satellite technology may create problems because all residents/commercial tenants may not be able to receive the services due to limitations caused by satellite positioning.

A community-type satellite dish or antenna mounted on the roof of a property may be totally impractical and uneconomical to provide service to a small universe of potential subscribers.

back to the top ^