• Welcome to AppraisersForum.com, the premier online  community for the discussion of real estate appraisal. Register a free account to be able to post and unlock additional forums and features.

California Senate Bill 70

Status
Not open for further replies.

Michigan CG

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Nov 1, 2006
Professional Status
Certified General Appraiser
State
Michigan
The question is why?
 
  • Like
Reactions: A K

Vernon Martin

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2005
Professional Status
Certified General Appraiser
State
California
There's a saying, "Sunlight is the greatest disinfectant". Whoever wrote this bill is therefore an opponent of sunlight and USPAP. The odd thing is BREA told me that the bill was sponsored by an AI chapter. It must be a chapter in which the appraisers work predominantly for developers and syndicators.
 

reviewbe

Sophomore Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2016
Professional Status
Certified General Appraiser
State
California
The question is why?

To minimize TAF, mainly, and make AI the primary voice of appraisers. Who needs USPAP (TAF's baby) if alternative standards may be used?

Agree that this is a bad idea. I mean, why have any rules at all if you can get away doing this kind of stuff. There may be instances where lessening of the rules would be appropriate, but the ethically challenged appraiser would have a green light to do whatever it takes to make the client happy.

Licensing is really just the stamp of approval from the state licensing bureau that the appraiser is competent and ethical. Part of that approval is the requirement for the appraiser to follow some rules, or else the license can be revoked, i.e., no more stamp of approval. So this is a way to bypass rules that are there to protect the public, while still enjoying the blessing from the state.

I don't see how this makes sense. Either do away with licensing altogether and go back to the old days of an appraiser being hired based on reputation (which is not very practical today, with diminished local reputations and disconnect between the client/appraisal user and the local community), or live within the rules.
 

Vernon Martin

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2005
Professional Status
Certified General Appraiser
State
California
Written comments are being taken on this bill, SB 70, until April 10. I call this "The Bill Allowing Dishonest Appraisals". The four most objectionable parts are:

1. Restricted appraisals would no longer have to be labeled as such and can be distributed to unintended users.
2. An appraiser does not have to disclose prior services on the same property any more.
3. A 3-year sales history no longer has to be disclosed.
4. An appraiser does not have to disclose sales or listings or options concerning the subject property.

If you have an opinion, don't use snail mail because it might not get there in time. The committee chairman is Jerry Hill and his web site is
http://sd13.senate.ca.gov/send-e-mail. If you don't want to fill in all the boxes on the web site, you can also e-mail your opinions directly to his aide: [email protected] .

I am told by BREA that this bill is actually sponsored by the California Appraisal Institute Government Relations Committee. Perhaps the members have gone rogue, because I can't believe AI would condone legislation like this.
 

CANative

Elite Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2003
Professional Status
Retired Appraiser
State
California
CA is a Man/FRT state.

Less BS for everything except FRT and GSE. As it should be.

Probably also helpful for assessor appraisers who have both types of licenses.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Find a Real Estate Appraiser - Enter Zip Code

Copyright © 2000-, AppraisersForum.com, All Rights Reserved
AppraisersForum.com is proudly hosted by the folks at
AppraiserSites.com
Top

AdBlock Detected

We get it, advertisements are annoying!

Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks useful features of our website. For the best site experience please disable your AdBlocker.

I've Disabled AdBlock
No Thanks