Archive for Uncategorized

New post on LAW OF THE LAND

New post on LAW OF THE LAND

NY Trial Court Holds Libraries Entitled to Same Deference as Schools and Religious Institutions in Zoning and Environmental Review
by Patricia Salkin

The East Hampton local library operates as a non-profit institution of the University of the State of New York. Because it ranked second to last in per capita children’s books among 15 local libraries, the library proposed to add a 10,000 square foot children’s wing to the rear of its existing building. After opposition, the project was reduced to just over 6,800 square feet. In 2003, it applied to the ZBA for a special use permit and two variances; the ZBA issued a positive declaration under SEQRA. Despite receiving a letter from the DEC that clearly stated the action was Type II under the regulations, and thus exempt from SEQRA review, the ZBA denied the library’s petition for qualification as a Type II action. Subsequently a DEIS was prepared and found incomplete, then completed and accepted in 2008. Following public hearings and the adoption of findings, the application for the variances and special use permit were denied in July 2010.
It is well established that religious and educational institutions, whether public or private, enjoy special treatment with respect to zoning ordinances, because of their inherently beneficial nature. Further, the East Hampton court points out that religious and educational institutions are recognized as facilitating the very same objectives as zoning ordinances themselves (fostering the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare). This presumed beneficial impact can only be rebutted with evidence of significant impact on the public, which was missing in this case.
The East Hampton ZBA asserted that although the library was chartered by the University of the State of New York and may be treated as an educational institution for some purposes, it should not be considered so for zoning purposes or under SEQRA. The Supreme Court disagreed. Reversing the ZBA’s variance and special permit denials, the court found that the library was an educational institution and, as such, entitled to the same deferential treatment in zoning accorded to schools and religious institutions.
The court also annulled the ZBA’s SEQRA findings statement, stating that the library’s submissions reference 6 NYCRR § 617.5 and clearly establish that the proposed addition constitutes a Type II action under SEQRA. Under 6 NYCRR § 617.5(c)(8), routine activities of educational institutions, including the expansion of existing facilities by less than 10,000 square feet, constitute Type II actions exempted from environmental review. As an interesting result of this case (or rather, a result of the ZBA’s complete disregard of the letter issued by DEC – the very agency charged with SEQRA enforcement), the DEC amended its published SEQRA Handbook so as to emphatically state that, for purposes of 6 NYCRR §617.5(c)(8), educational institutions include all schools and libraries chartered and/or registered by the State Board of Regents.
East Hampton Library v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Village of East Hampton, 31 Misc. 3d 1231(A) (5/17/2011)
Thanks to Jennie Nolon, Esq. of the Land Use Law Center at Pace University School of Law for sending in this abstract.
Patricia Salkin | January 29, 2012 at 1:14 am | Tags: Libraries | Categories: Current Caselaw – New York | URL: http://wp.me/p64kE-1zo
Comment
See all comments

Comments

HUD Showers Bay Area with Grant Money

Dear Curtis,

Despite the Supreme Court’s decision last month that paved the way for the dissolution of redevelopment, two separate lawsuits are pending in Sacramento Superior Court that could – say plaintiffs – effectively overturn Assembly Bill X1 26. A group of cities led by the City of Carlsbad is arguing that enactment of AB X1 26 depends on the enactment of AB X1 27, which was struck down by the Supreme Court; this is a different argument from the “severability” argument that came up in front of the Supreme Court. The other, unrelated case, is led by the City of Cerritos, which argues, among other things, that AB X1 26 implicitly changes the state’s property tax scheme so dramatically that it requires a 2/3 majority vote of the Legislature; AB X1 26 was passed by a simple majority. Both cases are scheduled to be heard in Superior Court at 1:30 p.m. Friday, January 27.

Also in this issue:
- HUD Showers Bay Area with Grant Money
-How to Dismantle Your RDA
-California Redevelopment Bonds Get Downgraded
-Most-Read Blog Entries and News Stories

-Bay Area HUD Grant
Though urban planners may have a handle on the places where people go and on the ways that they get there, it’s a truism that an urban area probably doesn’t amount to much if its residents don’t have anything to do. To bridge the gap between land use planning and economic development, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development recently awarded the Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Commission nearly $5 million for a regional planning effort. Bay Area planners say that the funds will help low-income residents live in places that are accessible to the jobs that they so dearly need.

-RDA Dismantling
Many cities across California have, begrudgingly, accepted the fact that in a week they have to dismantle their redevelopment agencies. Now they just have to figure out what that means. With many questions lingering about the process of handing over RDAs’ books and assets to successor agencies, the California Department of Finance recently released a website with an overview of the process and responses to frequently asked questions. More questions will no doubt arise, but it’s a start.

-RDA Bond Downgrade
Got some redevelopment bonds and expect to be paid back on time? You’re probably safe, but the country’s two most prominent bond ratings agencies – Moody’s and Fitch – say that you’re not quite as safe as you once were. Moody has downgraded all California redevelopment bonds, and Fitch put them on a watch list because of concerns over the dissolution process dictated by AB X1 26. Supporters of redevelopment point to the downgrades as further proof that the Legislature and governor should extend the dissolution deadline to April 15 so that cities have longer to prepare for the monumental task of transferring assets and setting up payment schedules.
Advertise in CP&DR
Get a great rate for combined placement of ads in the regular CP&DR publication, the website www.cp-dr.com, and this weekly e-newsletter! Contact Robin Andersen, Circulation Manager, at randersen@cp-dr.com.
Network with CP&DR on Twitter and Facebook
Like your planning news on the go? Follow CP&DR’s Twitter feed @Cal_Plan for quick updates and commentary throughout the day. And please join fellow planning aficionados by becoming a fan of CP&DR on Facebook.

Most Read Articles on www.cp-dr.com

1 SB 375 Draws Ire of Tea Party
2 ‘Parklets’ Create Public Space, 120 Square Feet at a Time
3 CP&DR’s Redevelopment Deathwatch Page
4 New Professional Group Promotes Infill Development
5 Pioneering Sustainability Plan Takes Shape in San Diego Region
6 Parking Reform Measure Strains Relationship Between Infill Developers, Housing Advocates
7 From SoHo to Yolo: Community Arts Grants Encourage Placemaking
8 A Prescription for Prosperity: Let Cities Be Cities
9 New Tsunami Maps Depict Extreme High-Water Mark
10 50 Years Later, Jacobs Still Leads a Sorority of Dissent

Most Read Blogs on www.cp-dr.com

1 California’s Best And Worst Mid-Sized City Downtowns
2 SB 375 Is Now Law — But What Will It Do?
3 California’s Best And Worst Big City Downtowns
4 Best Downtowns: College Towns
5 Proposed ‘New City’ Banks on Resurrection of Salton Sea
6 Redevelopment Will Be Back — But At What Price?
7 CCAPA Journal: Planning in California Is Changing, So Let’s Talk About It
8 Governor Drops in on SGC Discussion of 2011 Agenda
9 UCLA cityLAB Tries to Lift Westwood’s Curse
10 Asst. AG Ken Alex Reportedly Tapped to Lead Office of Planning and Research

Comments

NY Trial Court Holds that Hookup Fees for Offsite Improvements may be Valid Preconditions to Approval

New post on LAW OF THE LAND

NY Trial Court Holds that Hookup Fees for Offsite Improvements may be Valid Preconditions to Approval
by Patricia Salkin

New York statutes confer no express authority on planning boards to require offsite improvements or fees in lieu thereof as a condition for approval. As such, New York courts have consistently invalidated offsite improvement requirements and such fees. The holding from the Middletown court (below), however, suggests that a “hookup fee” for offsite improvements to municipal systems may be a valid precondition to approval where it relates only to costs directly necessitated by the proposed project.
In Middletown, the Enlarged City School District of Middletown applied for a permit to connect the District’s proposed new elementary school to the City’s sewer line. The City, which was obligated by an Order on Consent with DEC to rehabilitate portions of its sewer system, required, as a precondition to its consideration of the application, that the District pay to reconstruct, repair, or replace 3,300 feet of sewer pipeline extending well beyond the school property and servicing both private individuals and developments.
Granting relief to the District in a hybrid Article 78 proceeding / declaratory judgment action, the Supreme Court concluded that although a city may impose certain conditions before granting approval of a development project, it may not require an applicant to make off-site improvements to public infrastructure. In the same breath, the court clarified that a city may, however, impose a “hookup fee” for certain costs of construction of a replacement sewer line, if one is necessitated by the proposed building (not by future growth of the city generally), but only to the extent proportionate to the applicant’s usage of that sewer line relative to its total capacity.
Enlarged City School Dist. of Middletown v. City of Middletown, 30 Misc.3d 1233(A) (1/26/2011)
Thanks to Jennie Nolon, Esq. of the Land Use Law Center at Pace University School of Law for sending in this abstract.
Patricia Salkin | January 28, 2012 at 1:21 am | Categories: Current Caselaw – New York, Exactions | URL: http://wp.me/p64kE-1zr
Comment
See all comments

Comments

New post on LAW OF THE LAND

New post on LAW OF THE LAND

NY Trial Court Finds No Property Right in an Erroneously Issued Permit
by Patricia Salkin

The Building Department for the Town of North Hempstead issued two use permits to Designer Limousines to operate its business. Pursuant to the Town Code, the Building Department Commissioner has the authority to revoke any permit “[w]here he finds that the permit was issued in error and should not have been issued in accordance with the applicable law.” Following a revocation hearing, at which the Deputy Commissioner of the Building Department stated that there was no provision within the Town Code authorizing the Deputy Commissioner to produce such a document or issue it to the public, the Commissioner of the Building Department revoked Plaintiff’s two permits. Plaintiff, Designer Limousines, sought damages for lost business alleging that the town acted arbitrarily, capriciously, and negligently.
The town prevailed on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, because erroneously issued permits do not create property rights for which aggrieved parties can seek damages. Citing Orangetown v. McGee, the Supreme Court noted: “In New York, a vested right can be acquired when, pursuant to a legally issued permit, the landowner demonstrates a commitment to the purpose for which the permit was granted by effecting substantial changes and incurring substantial expenses to further the development.” Vested rights cannot be created in reliance upon an invalid permit; an erroneously issued permit does not estop a municipality from correcting errors, even where there are harsh results. A court may apply these rules even where the plaintiff was not involved in the building or construction of a structure. Adopting the principal articulated in McGee and other cited cases, the court concluded that towns have the right to revoke erroneously issued permits and may not be held liable in damages when building inspectors erroneously issue such permits or subsequently decide to revoke them.
Designer Limousines Inc. v. Town of North Hempstead, 32 Misc. 3d 1212(A) (7/10/2011).
Thanks to Jennie Nolon, Esq. of the Land Use Law Center at Pace University School of Law for sending in this abstract.
Patricia Salkin | January 28, 2012 at 1:10 am | Categories: Current Caselaw – New York, Vested Rights | URL: http://wp.me/p64kE-1zk
Comment
See all comments

Comments

distributed by the Appraisal Foundation (TAF

Lori,
The Appraisal Subcomette

Recently, I was made aware of a letter distributed by the Appraisal Foundation (TAF) in response to a publication by the National Association of Home Builders. The significance of the TAF letter was that appraiser have the freedom to choose whatever comps they feel are relevant to their valuation-including no arm’s length sales to opine Market Value. This practice is an apparent violation of acceptable appraisal practices. I requested and then demanded that they send me a citation supporting this argument along with one indicating that their response was sanctioned by their bylaws. They, again, refused. I then demanded the information, along with comprehensive resume’s indicating that they were competent to derive such conclusions, under the Freedom of Information Act (FIA.) They again refused, stating that they were not subject to the FIA because they are a Private Non-profit organization.

This leads me to believe that they are incompetent for their positions, and that their actions have contributed to an unnecessary geometric decline in real property values. My complaints are:

1. It is not within their purview to make requested or unrequested public comments re Appraisal Practices.

2. They are incompetent to make such statements.

3. They have no standing when it comes to an exemption of the FIA.

Thanks!
Curtis D. Harris, BS, CGREA, REB
Bachelor of Science in Real Estate, CSULA
State Certified General Appraiser
Real Estate Broker
ASTM E-2018 Commercial Real Estate Inspector
HUD 203k Consultant
HUD/FHA Real Estate Appraiser/Reviewer
FannieMae REO Consultant
CTAC LEED Certification

The Harris Company, Forensic Appraisers and Real Estate Consultants
*PIRS/Harris Company and the Science of Real Estate-Partners*
1910 East Mariposa Avenue, Suite 115
El Segundo, CA. 90245
310-337-1973 Office
310-251-3959 Cell
WebSite: http://www.harriscompanyrec.com
Resume: http://www.harriscompanyrec.com/CURRICULUMVITAENAME2011a.pdf
Commercial Appraiser Blog: http://harriscompanyrec.com/blog/

We Make a Simple Pledge to

Communicate, in a timely fashion, each appraisal, analysis, and opinion without bias or partiality

Abstain from behavior that is deleterious to our clients, the appraisal profession, and the public

Hold paramount the confidential nature of the appraiser/consultant – client relationship

and

Comply with the requirements of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice and the
Code of Professional Ethics of the National Society of Real Estate Appraisers

IT’S THE LAW- Statement 7: Prohibition Against Discrimination
State agencies should be aware that Title XI and the Agencies’ regulations prohibit federally regulated financial institutions from excluding appraisers from consideration for an assignment by virtue of their membership, or lack of membership, in any appraisal organization. Federally regulated financial institutions should review the qualifications of appraisers to ensure that they are qualified for the assignment for which they are being considered. It is unacceptable to assume that an appraiser is qualified solely due to membership in, or designation from, an appraisal organization, or the lack thereof. The Agencies have determined that financial institutions’ appraisal policies should not favor appraisers from one or more organizations or exclude individuals based on their lack of such membership. If a State agency learns that a certified or licensed appraiser allegedly has been a victim of such discrimination, the State agency should inform the Agency which has regulatory authority over the involved financial institution. INCLUDING THE APPRAISAL INSTITUTE-MAI
CONFIDENTIALITY/PRIVILEGE NOTICE: This transmission and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee. The information contained in this transmission is confidential in nature and protected from further use or disclosure under U.S. Pub. L. 106-102, 113 U.S. Stat. 1338 (1999), and may be subject to consultant/appraiser-client or other legal privilege. Your use or disclosure of this information for any purpose other than that intended by its transmittal is strictly prohibited and may subject you to fines and/or penalties under federal and state law. If you are not the intended recipient of this transmission, please destroy all copies received and confirm destruction to the sender via return transmittal

Comments

National Appraisal Board Adopts Changes to the

National Appraisal Board Adopts Changes to the
Real Property Appraiser Qualification Criteria
Effective January 1, 2015
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 24, 2012
Contact:
Paula Douglas Seidel
Executive Administrator
The Appraisal Foundation
paula@appraisalfoundation.org
direct phone 202.624.3048

Washington, DC — The Appraisal Foundation is pleased to announce that Proposed Revisions to the Real Property Appraiser Qualification Criteria (Criteria) have been adopted by the Appraiser Qualifications Board (AQB). The AQB is an independent Board of The Appraisal Foundation. The AQB is responsible for developing minimum qualifications for education, experience, examination and continuing education for real property appraisers in the United States.

The Criteria, which were adopted at the December 2011 meeting of the AQB, will be effective on January 1, 2015. The changes to the Criteria are the result of five public exposure drafts, covering a period of 15 months. Feedback was received from interested parties in the form of comment letters as well as comments made to the Board at public meetings. The changes to the Criteria will affect individuals seeking a real property appraiser credential as of January 1, 2015. It is important to note that individual State Appraiser Regulatory Agencies may opt to implement the Criteria earlier than the 2015 deadline.

A summary of the changes to the Criteria include:

• Education and experience will have to be completed prior to taking the National Uniform Licensing and Certification Examinations;
• Applicants for the Certified Residential and Certified General classifications will have to possess a Bachelor’s degree or higher from an accredited college or university;
• Applicants for the Licensed Residential classification will have to have successfully completed 30 semester hours of college-level education from an accredited college, junior college, community college, or university, or have an Associate’s degree or higher from an accredited college, junior college, community college, or university;
• All candidates will be required to undergo a background check;
• Recognition of approved university degree programs as counting toward the education requirements in the Real Property Appraiser Qualification Criteria;
• Removal of the “Segmented” Approach to the Real Property Appraiser Qualification Criteria implementation;
• Prohibition of repetitive continuing education in the same continuing education cycle;
• Clarification of the term “written examination”;
• Revisions to the Trainee Appraiser classification that will include a requirement to take a course oriented to the requirements and responsibilities of Trainee Appraisers and Supervisory Appraisers;
• New Supervisory Appraiser requirements;
• Revisions to Guide Note 1; and
• Additions to the illustrative list of educational topics acceptable for continuing education.

A more detailed summary of the changes to the Criteria is available at the following link:

https://appraisalfoundation.sharefile.com/d/sd2f26fafefe402ab.

Any questions on the Real Property Appraiser Qualification Criteria and the work of the Appraiser Qualifications Board can be directed to Magdalene Vasquez, Qualifications Administrator at 202.624.3074.

Comments

Basic Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning (HVAC)”

Dear Valued Customer,
Southern California Edison’s Energy Education Center is offering a free seminar. Reservations are required to attend “Basic Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning (HVAC)” taking place at SCE’s South Bay Service Center on Friday, January 27.

Seats are still available!

Technicians, maintenance workers, and other new-comers to the field will learn the basics of HVAC systems in both residential and commercial applications.

Participants will learn how various HVAC systems and applications can save energy and understand which units have the best overall value.

Event Details
Event Name: Basic Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning (HVAC)
Event Number: 30328
Event Date: Friday, January 27, 2012
Event Time: 8:30 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.
Registration & Continental Breakfast: 8:00 a.m.
Event Location: SCE’s South Bay Service Center
505 Maple Ave
Torrance, CA 90503

Reservations can be made by calling (626) 812-7537 or
(800) 336- 2822- ext 42537

**DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS ADVERTISEMENT VIA EMAIL FOR REGISTRATION
IN-BOX IS NOT MONITORED**
THANK YOU.
FOR OVER 100 YEARS…LIFE. POWERED BY EDISON.

Comments

MORE LIES AND PROPAGANDA FROM THE APPRAISAL INSTITUTE, THEY JUST WON’T QUIT.

MORE LIES AND PROPAGANDA FROM THE APPRAISAL INSTITUTE, THEY JUST WON’T QUIT.

The latest Opinions of Value
Appraisal Institute Helps Appraisers Choose (NON ARMS LENGTH AND DISTRESSED SALES AS) Comparable Sales in Declining Markets
Posted by Appraisal Institute Staff on Thu, Jan 19, 2012

The nation’s largest professional association of real estate appraisers published guidance this week to help appraisers know when and how to use distressed sales, such as foreclosures, as comparable sales. (YES! USE A NON-MARKET, DISTRESSED SALE, THEN HIT IT WITH A NEGATIVE TIME ADJUSTMENT. MAKES A LOT OF CENSE RIGHT, WRONG! YOU HAVE NOT ONLY USED INAPPROPRIATE DATA YOU HAVE HIT IT WITH AN UNSUPPORTED TIME ADJUSTMENT. ) Such knowledge is particularly crucial in the current market where distressed sales are common, creating complex valuation challenges. (WRONG! NOTHING AT ALL IS COMPLEX ABOUT THIS PROCESS, YOU USE DISTRESSED SALES WHEN YOU WANT A DISTRESSED VALUE AND MARKET SALES WHEN YOU WANT TO MEASURE “MARKET VALUE.”)
The Appraisal Institute noted that appraisers often use comparable sales (or “comps”) to help develop an opinion of value. But in today’s distressed real estate market, many potential comparable sales represent foreclosed properties. (A NON-ARMS LENGTH TRANSACTION IS NOT COMPARABLE TO A MARKET TRANSACTION, STOP, YOU ARE DRIVING THE ENTIRE U.S. ECONOMY INTO THE TOILET-BANKRUPTCY.) Some owners have complained their home’s values have fallen because appraisers have used such sales as comps. (DUH!!!! PRETTY SCARY WHEN THE NOVICE KNOWS MORE THAN THE SO CALLED, PROFESSIONAL, MAI, SRA, APPRAISAL INSTITUTE.)
The Appraisal Institute’s “Guide Note 11: Comparable Selection in a Declining Market” notes that “transactions used in an appraisal assignment require adjustments for changes in market conditions.” (THIS HAS BEEN ADDRESSED ABOVE AND IN OTHER NOTES BY THIS AUTHOR.)
According to the Appraisal Institute, qualified and competent appraisers (PROPAGANDA) with local market knowledge are capable of using their experience and education to determine when – and how – to use distressed sales as comparables. These appraisers know what adjustments to make, if any, when using distressed sales as comparables, for such methods are taught in basic coursework and updated seminar materials available to professional appraisers. (NOW EXCUSE THE LANGUAGE BUT THIS IS A BLATANT OUT AND OUT LIE. SEVERAL YEARS AGO I TOOK ONE OF THESE “UPDATED SEMINARS” WHERE THEY WERE PROMOTING THE USE OF REO AND SHORT SALES AS COMPARABLES AND I STRONGLY OBJECTED. MY OBJECTION RECEIVED A SIMILARLY STRONG REPLY FROM THE INSTRUCTOR. I GAVE HIM AN AUTHORITY, THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY ASSESSOR, WHO REJECT THE NOTION THAT ONE SHOULD USE DISTRESSED SALES AS COMPARABLES IN AN ATTEMPT TO GET MARKET VALUE. TO WHICH HE REPLIED “DO YOU THINK I CARE ABOUT THEM!”
The Appraisal Institute’s Guide Note says: “A declining market will likely exhibit very little sales activity. When the sales comparison approach is necessary, but there are virtually no current sales in the market area to analyze as comps, the appraiser must: 1. Expand the geographic area for comp search, then adjust for location as appropriate, and/or 2. Use less recent sales, then adjust for market conditions as appropriate.” (NOW DO I DETECT AN INCONSISTENCY? HOW DOES NUMBERS 1, AND 2 PRIOR RECONCILE THE USE OF DISTRESSED SALES AS COMPARABLES?)
Designated members of the Appraisal Institute – such as those who have earned the MAI (commercial/general) or SRA (residential) designation – are among the appraisers capable of properly performing difficult assignments (PROPAGANDA) such as those found in today’s challenging real estate market. They have achieved levels of education, experience, standards, ethics and peer review above those of licensed or state certified appraisers. (REMINDS ME OF MY COUSIN WHO ONCE BRAGGED THAT HE HAD, OVER HIS LIFETIME, DRIVEN MORE THAN 50,000 MILES. MY RESPONSE, KNOWING HIM, WAS TO BAD 25,000 MILES WERE THE WRONG WAY.”
Click here to download the Appraisal Institute’s six-page pdf of “Guide Note 11: Comparable Selection in a Declining Market.”
If you have an “opinion of value,” please share your comments.

IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS THE APPRAISAL INSTITUTE AND THE APPRAISAL FOUNDATION ARE, FOR SOME REASON, PROMOTING THIS PRACTICE WHICH HAS SET THE REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY BACK 10 YEARS. HOW FAR WILL IT GO? IT’S UP TO YOU. WE ARE A VERY SMALL BUSINESS AND ENCOURAGE YOU TO ALERT EVERY HOMEOWNER, REALTOR, REAL ESTATE INVESTOR TO PROTEST! EMAIL ME @HARRIS_CURTIS@SBCGLOBEL.NET

MORE LIES AND PROPAGANDA FROM THE APPRAISAL INSTITUTE

Comments

Don’t Shoot the Messenger(-Shoot the AI, MAI, SRA, Appraisal Institute Member, OR IT’S MANAGEMENT.)

Don’t Shoot the Messenger(-Shoot the AI, MAI, SRA, Appraisal Institute Member, OR IT’S MANAGEMENT.)

Appraisers Not at Fault for ‘Low’ Home Values

Many in the real estate industry have tried to blame the market’s distressed condition on appraisers, saying that appraisers are at fault for producing opinions of value that don’t match a home’s listing or contract price, delaying a recovery in the housing market. In fact, appraisers are undertaking the same thorough research and thoughtful analysis that they always have in order to continue producing reliable, credible opinions of value.(is this a JOKE?)

Appraisals aren’t intended to confirm a home’s sales price.

Appraisals completed for mortgage transactions are used to assist lenders in making lending decisions. Buyers and sellers often have emotional value attached to a home or are unaware of the market. They shouldn’t assume an appraisal is somehow “wrong” if it doesn’t match the listing or contract price. There’s no reason to assume the contract price is the “correct” price simply because it’s higher than the appraisal.

Appraisers don’t set the real estate market; they reflect what’s happening in the market.

Think of the appraiser as a mirror, reflecting the market – and the market is depressed as home prices have fallen far below values of a few years ago. Reliable, credible opinions of value help stabilize real estate loans and investments, promoting socially desirable real estate development.

Appraisers work not for buyers or sellers, but for lenders. (THE APPRAISER WORKS FOR THE LENDER! NOT IN MY PRACTICE, IN MY PRACTICE WE ARE AN INDEPENDENT PARTY THAT HAS ONLY ONEOR TWO BOSSES, MARKET VALUE AND USPAP. THE APPRAISAL INSTITUTE HAS ALWAYS WORKED FOR THE BANKS, WHEN THEY WANT VALUES TO GO UP THEY COMPLY, AND NOW WHEN THE BANKS DO NOT WANT TO MAKE REAL ESTATE LOANS, THE APPRAISAL INSTITUTE FRADGUENTLY HAS KEEP VALUES VERY LOW BY NOT USING MARKET TRANSACTIONS AS COMPARABLE. IF YOU THINK I AM BLOWING SMOKE ASK HER HOW MANY AI, MAI, APPRAISAL INSTITUTE MEMBERS HAVE DEGREES IN FINANCE, RATHER THAN REAL ESTATE.)

The appraiser’s client for appraisals completed for mortgage transactions typically is the lender – not the buyer or seller. Lenders order appraisals to get a stronger understanding of risk relating to the underlying collateral offered in a mortgage. Neither the lender nor the consumer benefits by entering into a mortgage that is more than the value of the property.

Appraisers are independent, third-party experts (AN EXPERT IS ONE WHO HAS BEEN SO DESIGNATED BY A TRIER OF FACT IN A COURT OF LAW, NOT THE APPRAISAL INSTITUTE) with no motive to be biased. (IT IS NOT A MATTER OF BIAS BUT A MATTER OF IGNORANCE AND COMPLISITY.)

Appraisers are particularly valuable because they are an objective and unbiased source of real estate information. Unlike some other real estate professionals, appraisers perform a professional service for a flat fee – rather than for a commission contingent on the value conclusion, the approval of a loan or the eventual sale of the property.

Appraisals sometimes are assigned to the least qualified, least competent appraisers. (AI, MAI, APPRAISAL INSTITUTE MEMBERS. )

Federal regulations and policies require a “firewall” between appraisers and lenders. To perform this “middleman” function, lenders often turn to appraisal management companies. AMCs’ business models are based on keeping as much of the appraisal fee as possible and paying as little as possible to the appraiser performing the appraisal. This can lead to the least qualified, least competent appraisers – including those from other cities or even other states without sufficient knowledge of the local market – being hired to perform complex appraisals.

(DO YOU REALLY WANT TO USE ONE OF THESE FOLKS (appraisal institute) THAT DOES NOT EVEN KNOW THE DEFINITION OF MARKET VALUE) Especially in a distressed market, competent and qualified appraisers – such as designated members of the Appraisal Institute – should be hired for difficult assignments.

Designated members of the Appraisal Institute have achieved levels of education, experience, standards, ethics and peer review above those of licensed or state certified appraisers. Those qualifications are particularly valuable when facing challenging valuation assignments … such as those found today.

(HOW DO YOU ADJUST FOR DISTRESSED SALES WHEN ESTIMATING MARKET VALUE? ASK HER, THE CURRENT PRESIDENT OF THE APPARISAL INDTITUTE HOW IT IS DONE. YOU ARE NEITHER COMPETENT OR QUALIFIED IF YOU USE DISTRESSED SALES AS COMPARABLES, THIS HAS BEEN A HARD AND FAST RULE SINCE I GOT IN THE BUSINESS, IN THE 70′S.) Appraisers know how to use distressed sales as comparables.(THEY ALSO NKOW HOW TO KILL YOUR DEAL, FIGHT BACK, SUE, HIRE SOMEONE WHO KNOWS THE DEFINATION OF MARKET VALUE!)

Qualified, competent appraisers are capable of using their experience and education to determine when – and how – to use distressed sales (such as foreclosures) as comparable sales. These appraisers know what adjustments to make, if any, when using distressed sales as comparables. In some markets, distressed sales are so prevalent that it would be improper not to use them as comparables.

LETS GET REAL, BANKS DO NOT WANT TO MAKE LOANS WITH THESE LOW RATES AND THEY HAVE A HIRED GUN! THE APPRAISAL INSTITUTE AND THE APPRAISAL FOUNDATION TO DO THEIR DIRTY WORK. FOR MORE CONSULT THE HARRIS COMPANY, REA/C http://www.harriscompanyrec.com

Comments

iF wIkI cAN GET RIGHT, wHAT IS WRONG WITH ai, AND TAF

Comparable Factors iF wIkI cAN GET RIGHT, wHAT IS WRONG WITH ai, AND TAF
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparables
Five factors are usually considered when determining comparables:
Conditions of Sale — Did the comparable recently transact under conditions (e.g. — arms length, distress sale, estate settlement) which are consistent with the standard of value under which the appraisal is being performed?
Financing Conditions — Was the comparable transaction influenced by non-market or other favorable (or even unfavorable) financing terms? For example, if the comparable sold with a below-market interest rate provided by the seller, and if the standard of value (e.g. — market value) assumes no such abnormal financing, then the appraiser may need to adjust the comparable price by an amount equal to the estimated impact of the favorable financing.
Market Conditions — This is often referred to as the time adjustment and accounts for changing prices over time.
Locational Comparability — Are the comparable and the subject property influenced by the same locational characteristics? For example, even two houses in the same neighborhood may have different views which cause one to be more valuable than the other.
Physical Comparability — This includes such factors as size, condition, quality, and age.

Comments

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »