I’m not sure about you, but I haven’t quite been able to grasp what’s happening in California with all of the data sharing proposals and MLS merger announcements that have been hitting the wire in the past year. I’ve now heard of Quattro, CARETS, and MLSAlliance, and now CALMLS, and I couldn’t figure out what made any one of them different than any of the others.

Over on the Diverse Solutions blog, Mike Price posted an interview with Russ Bergeron, CEO of SoCal MLS, about what CARETS is specifically trying to accomplish in spite of all of the other proposals going around. It’s an interesting read for sure, especially considering that many other MLS’s around the country are keenly watching to see what happens in California so that can learn how to handle the complexities of creating their own partnerships. Some of the excepts from the interview are posted below.

Mike: Many MLS’s have tried similar data share program in California what makes CARETS different and successful thus far?
Russ: CARETS is not a true datashare – it is more than that. Others have done datashare (as have we), but that is usually between two or more disparate systems with no common data definitions. The result is that data is not common from system to system once the datashare has been done. With CARETS, we have normalized the database so that each and every MLS adheres to the same definitions and rules regarding content and display. The result for the user is that it looks like they are members of one big MLS. The other huge difference with CARETS is that the end user does not have to learn any new software or systems. They continue to use whatever software they’re comfortable with – in our case Tempo, eNeighborhoods, rDesk, MLS Office, ListingBook, etc. – with no obvious changes other than the fact they now have access to many, many more listings.

Mike: CARETS has moved quickly. How did you and the others get this done at such a rapid pace?
Russ: This is kind of like becoming a star overnight. We have actually been hard at work on this for 2 years and still have much to do but we have definitely proven that this concept is the best way to go. What made it so successful is that because of the history of the 5 MLS involved we did not have to overcome the politics, paranoia, personalities and protectionism that you are normally faced with in a project like this – we had addressed all of that years ago.

Mike: CAR is working on a statewide MLS. Do you see them or have they contacted you to adopt what you have done?
Russ: A statewide MLS is not necessarily a bad thing. I think if you polled the practitioners they would agree that a statewide MLS, or at least a standard statewide database would be a very good thing. […] I think there is consensus that the common database is the best approach. […]

Read more to hear the rest of the interview, including thoughts on how the idea got started, the benefits to the MLS’s involved in such a partnership, and what he thinks of a national MLS.