I don't see the appraisal necessity to deep dive into the attributes of the residents of the area. Any area.
In an oceanfront community where the homes on the ocean side sell for $6m and the homes across the street sell for $3m, I don't need to know that it's doctors and lawyers on the $3m side and CEOs on the other. All I need to know is that if sales from one side of the street were used as comparable sales in a value analysis of a home on the other side that a $3m adjustment would be necessary for the attribute of oceanfront vs non-oceanfront. (I'm thinking of the Seadrift neighborhood on the ocean side of the county but Manhattan Beach and the like of So Cal likely have a similar disparity.)
I'll leave the demographics of the residents up to sociologists like Korver and Perry to discuss and analyze. Any input I would have in that arena would make me look foolish and could be shot down by a second year sociology student. Likewise, Korver and Perry should stay out of the appraisal of real estate lest their theories and opinions be ridiculed and dismantled by even a Trainee appraiser.
Marin City, as you know is relatively speaking sparsely populated for the area, i.e. compared to Sausalito on the west and Mill Valley to the northeast. The 2020 population is just 2,993. So, those 507 units probably represent over a third of the population of Marin City. And to make matters worse, this affordable low income housing is close to the subject property in question. So, market value does depend on whether people prefer one area to another as well as one house to another. Both tend to be important.
You run regressions and build pricing models that indicate for example that there is a significant price difference between two areas. You could leave it at that, I agree. In fact,
if the reason were race, the guidelines state that you should avoid stating race as the cause. OK. Fine. Just state the area is lower priced because that is what the regression indicates. ---> But, if the lower-priced area has a significant black population (e.g. 40% for Marin City) and you get accused of bias, when there is another good reason for the price difference, then to defend yourself you will be quite justified to express that other good reason.
As many have said and believe, the decision in the Miller case was a gross travesty of justice with respect to caving in
apparently to the value of $1.5M. So, we as appraisers, are justified in investigating this further to determine the real situation, in order to develop protocols for avoiding these situations or dealing with them should they arise in the future.
So far there has been little mention of the existence, per Marin County records, of relatively significant numbers of affordable housing units for only "very low income" and "extremely low income" people in the subject neighborhood.
I submit that these issues, over decades, have created a less desirable neighborhood in Marin City that has led through various mechanisms to lower market values for single family residential homes.
Marin City is Marin City. Market Value is Market Value. Everybody knows that. These kinds of neighborhoods are backed into a corner, so to say. They ARE less desirable overall. You can try blackmail and scare appraisers into overvaluing them for a period of time. You could possibly justify such actions by saying they are rectifying injustice created by previous generations. But it would be pretty expensive for someone to keep up this farce for any length of time. Eventually, the homes will wind up on the open market and people will pay based on how well they - and their neighborhood - do or do not compete with surrounding areas and properties. And injustice is everywhere in all societies, going back in time as far as possible. It should be acceptable to focus on the current situations and develop equitable rules for dealing with a valuation that will work and not cause problems. - Another discussion that needs to go beyond race, to the long-term survival of mankind.
