A Black couple ‘erased themselves’ from their home to see if the appraised value would go up. It did - by nearly $500,000

[George Hatch]

RE: 635 Drake
Here's the comments in the MLS listing for the 2021 sale:

New bocce court! Great value for this three bedroom, two bath, on a +9,600 square foot lot rarely available in Southern Marin with peek-a-boo views of Richardson Bay and Tiburon. Enjoy the large yard with plenty of space to add a pool, separate office, or Accessory Dwelling Unit. Completely remodeled with a chef's kitchen, wood cabinets, granite counter tops and upgraded stainless steel appliances. Oak solid hardwood floors throughout and all new energy-conserving dual pane windows and sliders. Both bathrooms fully remodeled with custom tile work. New electric car charger. Upgraded electrical panel and tankless gas water heater. All air ducting replaced and more! Deck to enjoy bay breezes and a spacious back yard with new retaining walls making outdoor entertaining a delight! Conveniently situated to bay trails, schools, shopping, and Hwy 101. 1 block from major transportation and 10 miles/25 minutes to the Financial District making this a commuter's dream. Must see!​

​

Pics in the listing show a nice remodel, a fenced and landscaped rear yard with concrete patio, so that condition is going to be reasonably similar to what the subject ended up being in 2020. For this sale the DOM of 80 days means it wasn't a rushed sale. So, buy at the bottom of the market, spend $75k on a remodel and re-sell in 2021.

 

[Elliott]

This is so ridiculous, you don't even have a satisfactory method of appraisal. You are washed up before you even begin.

Can you explain what you mean or what you are talking about? Honestly, I'm confused as to your point.

 

[George Hatch]

I don't thinks so at all. I love the term "current expectations". What kind of "expectations" are you talking about? Something specific, objective and firm or something nebulous and wishy-washy? Or in other words, describe those expectations as best you can, and I will shoot holes through them.

The methods I use are objective. Another appraiser who follows the same method should come up with the same result in terms of final value. There would be no difference. For example, I am just finishing an appraisal of beach front homes, where the distance to the beach measured in feet is one of the primary driving factors of price. There are 600+ homes in the PUD that come into consideration. I have to measure distance from the beach for all them. Stamina. I also measure visual obstructions, - approximately. Oh yes, there is the golf course, we need a column for Golf with an indication for which homes are on the edge of the golf course. Work. I use R/earth for accurate regression. The residual is the accurate measure of all intangible features. I study the comps for differences between themselves their ranked RS score and the subject, then assign an estimated RS score to the subject. I let my software system grind and out pops something like $3M +/-. You can change the random seed to the regression -- and you will pretty much get the same value. You can change the other parameters that do impact output - but the value that pops out is pretty stable. I have a protocol, I publish it, and another appraiser who follows it should get the same result pretty much. But, ..., you also need a protocol for determining whether the results make sense. Sometimes there are bugs in the software or data that need to be ironed out, or something you missed. If you stick with it, you should have a workable model in the end --- and different appraisers should come up with about the same value.

Again, the subject of this lawsuit is the appraiser's conduct and performance, not what the optimum modes of analysis are that all appraisers should be using if only we bought your program.

The current appraisal process - which has demonstrated its utility in the market for many years - is not on trial here. The appraiser's conduct, particularly WRT her compliance with the ETHICS RULE, is what forms the basis of these allegations. They're alleging that she lied - out of racial animus - in order to harm the complainants.

 

[Elliott]

Surprise, you found a way to work in your anti Biden narrative. The last thing Biden is concerned with is appraisals right now, but regardless, you and a few others here keep intruding your personal hatred of this admin into appraisal topics. Nearly every thread and post you make about racial bias in appraisal has an ugly undertone behind it, and damages appraiser credibility. Regulators do have access to read this bb fwiw.

Keep your bigoted politics in the water cooler.

FACT SHEET: Biden-Harris Administration Announces New Actions to Build Black Wealth and Narrow the Racial Wealth Gap | The White House

One hundred years ago, the thriving Black community of Greenwood in Tulsa, Oklahoma, known as “Black Wall Street,” was ruthlessly attacked by a violent

www.whitehouse.gov

 

[jay trotta]

FACT SHEET: Biden-Harris Administration Announces New Actions to Build Black Wealth and Narrow the Racial Wealth Gap | The White House

One hundred years ago, the thriving Black community of Greenwood in Tulsa, Oklahoma, known as “Black Wall Street,” was ruthlessly attacked by a violent

www.whitehouse.gov

Is this the part your referencing ??
The destruction wrought on the Greenwood neighborhood and its families was followed by laws and policies that made recovery nearly impossible. The streets were redlined, locking Black Tulsans out of homeownership and access to credit. Federal highways built through the heart of Greenwood cut off families and businesses from economic opportunity. And chronic disinvestment by the federal government in Black entrepreneurs and small businesses denied Black Wall Street a fair shot at rebuilding. These are the stories of Greenwood, but they have echoes in countless Black communities across the country.

That was a long time ago and has persisted, are you saying it should remain that way today ??
And this has to do with Lending procedure not appraising.....if they're not Lending, you won't get an appraisal SEL

 

[RCA]

Again, the subject of this lawsuit is the appraiser's conduct and performance, not what the optimum modes of analysis are that all appraisers should be using if only we bought your program.

The current appraisal process - which has demonstrated its utility in the market for many years - is not on trial here. The appraiser's conduct, particularly WRT her compliance with the ETHICS RULE, is what forms the basis of these allegations. They're alleging that she lied - out of racial animus - in order to harm the complainants.

You are talking about the OP, right? If so, it seems it is about far more than that.

 

[Elliott]

Jay asked, "....are you saying"

I is not saying anything. The "appraisers are racists" was started during the 2020 campaign. The reference above is to a position paper put out in June 2021 by the White House that is supposedly in support of their position

My position is more in alignment with the statement made at a Fair Housing Conference referenced earlier in this thread:

MR. DANE [01:42:14]:
"There are plenty of cases out there indicating that implementers of discriminatory policies
could be held liable even if they did not know that the policy had a disparate impact.
The one actor in this process who probably has the least exposure - I'm not going to say
zero - but the least exposure would be the frontline appraiser, who's just following the rules.
You know, if there is a policy or practice that the appraiser's boss or employer or lender is
saying you must conduct the appraisal this way. And then it turns out that that way or that
policy has a disparate impact. Without intent. Frankly, I would probably not try to sue that
appraiser. Because the appraiser has no power to change the policy. Has no authority to
have influence on what the policy is and so forth. I would want to go after and I think the
law would probably tag exposure to liability on the entity or individuals who actually created
the policy and insisted that it be followed. "

 

[shrubberyvaluation]

Jay asked, "....are you saying"

I is not saying anything. The "appraisers are racists" was started during the 2020 campaign. The reference above is to a position paper put out in June 2021 by the White House that is supposedly in support of their position

My position is more in alignment with the statement made at a Fair Housing Conference referenced earlier in this thread:

MR. DANE [01:42:14]:
"There are plenty of cases out there indicating that implementers of discriminatory policies
could be held liable even if they did not know that the policy had a disparate impact.
The one actor in this process who probably has the least exposure - I'm not going to say
zero - but the least exposure would be the frontline appraiser, who's just following the rules.
You know, if there is a policy or practice that the appraiser's boss or employer or lender is
saying you must conduct the appraisal this way. And then it turns out that that way or that
policy has a disparate impact. Without intent. Frankly, I would probably not try to sue that
appraiser. Because the appraiser has no power to change the policy. Has no authority to
have influence on what the policy is and so forth. I would want to go after and I think the
law would probably tag exposure to liability on the entity or individuals who actually created
the policy and insisted that it be followed. "

Exactly. The federal executive branch is calling out appraisers for using good comps claiming we could exacerbate redlining and segregation. This puts us at odds with our certifications and using data to reconcile an opinion of market value.

 

[RCA]

Jay asked, "....are you saying"

I is not saying anything. The "appraisers are racists" was started during the 2020 campaign. The reference above is to a position paper put out in June 2021 by the White House that is supposedly in support of their position

My position is more in alignment with the statement made at a Fair Housing Conference referenced earlier in this thread:

MR. DANE [01:42:14]:
"There are plenty of cases out there indicating that implementers of discriminatory policies
could be held liable even if they did not know that the policy had a disparate impact.
The one actor in this process who probably has the least exposure - I'm not going to say
zero - but the least exposure would be the frontline appraiser, who's just following the rules.
You know, if there is a policy or practice that the appraiser's boss or employer or lender is
saying you must conduct the appraisal this way. And then it turns out that that way or that
policy has a disparate impact. Without intent. Frankly, I would probably not try to sue that
appraiser. Because the appraiser has no power to change the policy. Has no authority to
have influence on what the policy is and so forth. I would want to go after and I think the
law would probably tag exposure to liability on the entity or individuals who actually created
the policy and insisted that it be followed. "

Yea since when is Market Value about comparing your subject property to homes in surrounding neighborhoods when there are plenty of comps in the subject neighborhood? We are hitting contradictory requirements.

The government wants to change the facts of life by forcing appraisers to at least partially ignore the goal of estimating Market Value by introducing comps from more expensive neighborhoods. But, we all know, the most likely outcome will be lower profits for the GSEs and and an increased likelihood that the government will once again have to bail out the GSEs. If that is what "the people" want, so be it. But is it rather a minority that is pushing this strategy, with the help of greedy attorneys? I wonder.

 

[shrubberyvaluation]

Yea since when is Market Value about comparing your subject property to homes in surrounding neighborhoods when there are plenty of comps in the subject neighborhood? We are hitting contradictory requirements.

The government wants to change the facts of life by forcing appraisers to at least partially ignore the goal of estimating Market Value by introducing comps from more expensive neighborhoods. But, we all know, the most likely outcome will be lower profits for the GSEs and and an increased likelihood that the government will once again have to bail out the GSEs. If that is what "the people" want, so be it. But is it rather a minority that is pushing this strategy, with the help of greedy attorneys? I wonder.

If they want that they should change the definition of market value for Fannie appraisals to the most probably price a homeowner would want to receive for their property. And put in the certifications that we used sales outside of the subject's neighborhood to prevent segregation and redlining (without location adjustments!).