Homogeneous banned from the appraisal lexicon

[Fernando]

You would think all would just agree not to use homogeneous but I sense push back from some stubborn ones.

 

[Vermonter]

Until about 1977, when the Dept. of Justice settled its case against several appraiser organizations under the Fair Housing Act, the definition of the Principle of Conformity in The Appraisal of Real Estate (6th Edition) was quite different: "The principle of conformity holds that maximum value is realized when a reasonable degree of sociological and economic homogeneity is present. . ."

That's part of the reason why the word "homogeneity" is viewed as a loaded or code word in relation to alleged appraisal discrimination. So, in this environment with more focus on appraisal content, unless appraisers want to press the "sue me" button for lenders or themselves, why not just avoid using the word?

Because we're not appraising people, we're appraising houses.....so this description may be accurate

You would think all would just agree not to use homogeneous but I sense push back from some stubborn ones.

Aren't you due for another booster?

 

[Sadie]

Microaggressions. Sounds like Glen. View attachment 72545

These are conversations I would never have.

 

[glenn walker]

These are conversations I would never have.

No I transcended from Micro Agression to Macro Agression

 

[Fernando]

No I transcended from Micro Agression to Macro Agression

No, you're just a bully except you are rather kind to Zoe. I think you understand what Zoe is saying.

 

[George Hatch]

I'll tell you guys something else. There's no future in scheming on how to play word games to convey the same terms that these users want to avoid getting caught using. Your intent on the usage of these terms is irrelevant and strictly subordinate to your users' exposure to legal liability. Who here would feel good about their client having to dish out a free $300k mortgage because the appraiser was clumsy with their reporting and inadvertently opened the door for such a claim to be made on the plausibly deniable basis? Who here would feel good about their client being forced to pay even a $5k "get lost" settlement as opposed to the $100k cost of taking the case to trial?

WRT what these lenders are asking, this isn't even about you. It's about them. It's about their exposure to these claims. About their company getting dragged through the mud of trial-by-media. Where the accusation makes the front page and the outcome gets buried below the fold on pg 16.

If you want to clarify the comment in such a way as to clearly and explicitly refer to these properties and not to the people themselves or what people do then that's an intelligent approach. But if you're trying to play word games as a means of displaying your resentment to them telling you to be more mindful with your comments then that's just childish.

Just as an example, I NEVER comment about "maintenance levels" because "maintenance" is something people do, whereas "observed physical conditions" is a reference to what the properties look like; and even then you want to benchmark that judgement. "Observed physical conditions appear average when compared to other residential neighborhoods in the region", or some such.

And for heaven's sake, Job#1 is to be right in the first place. To become well informed on the specifics during the course of your assignment and to provide the supportable value conclusion and the defensible position.

 

[Mejappz]

You racist pigs. The ostrich effect.

 

[Fernando]

I'll tell you guys something else. There's no future in scheming on how to play word games to convey the same terms that these users want to avoid getting caught using. Your intent on the usage of these terms is irrelevant and strictly subordinate to your users' exposure to legal liability. Who here would feel good about their client having to dish out a free $300k mortgage because the appraiser was clumsy with their reporting and inadvertently opened the door for such a claim to be made on the plausibly deniable basis? Who here would feel good about their client being forced to pay even a $5k "get lost" settlement as opposed to the $100k cost of taking the case to trial?

WRT what these lenders are asking, this isn't even about you. It's about them. It's about their exposure to these claims. About their company getting dragged through the mud of trial-by-media. Where the accusation makes the front page and the outcome gets buried below the fold on pg 16.

If you want to clarify the comment in such a way as to clearly and explicitly refer to these properties and not to the people themselves or what people do then that's an intelligent approach. But if you're trying to play word games as a means of displaying your resentment to them telling you to be more mindful with your comments then that's just childish.

Just as an example, I NEVER comment about "maintenance levels" because "maintenance" is something people do, whereas "observed physical conditions" is a reference to what the properties look like; and even then you want to benchmark that judgement. "Observed physical conditions appear average when compared to other residential neighborhoods in the region", or some such.

And for heaven's sake, Job#1 is to be right in the first place. To become well informed on the specifics during the course of your assignment and to provide the supportable value conclusion and the defensible position.

For fixers which I don't use the term fixer, I state deferred maintenance. You don't have an issue with that, do you?

 

[George Hatch]

I haven't used that term in many years. Condition is condition.

 

[Flakey]

Help is on the way! I just received the latest news from SFREP and they jumping on the bandwagon. "At SFREP, we are making a proactive effort for our customers. Look for a new Bias Checker feature coming soon in Appraise-It Pro."

I had already been thinking about additional verbiage to clarify that descriptors in my reports were directed at physical characteristics not individuals when George posted the comment "If you want to clarify the comment in such a way as to clearly and explicitly refer to these properties and not to the people themselves or what people do then that's an intelligent approach."

Disclosure has always been about what we did and didn't do. Might as well throw this on the pile and start explaining what we did and did not mean.