Cost Approach vs Value Opinion

[Pittsburgh Pete]

I understand thats the current "teaching trend" .. but economic obsolescence nearly always is curable with time .. and external (resulting from something proximate but outside the property boundaries) is not ... in my opinion they are vastly different and should be recognized as such.

I get it CAN I really do... but they are different .. and I wish they were recognized as such.

So that decrepit house that sits next door (proximate and outside the boundaries) is purchased and demolished and a new house built is an example of external obsolescence that isn't cured?

Oh, whatever........!

 

[PropertyEconomics]

So that decrepit house that sits next door (proximate and outside the boundaries) is purchased and demolished and a new house built is an example of external obsolescence that isn't cured?

Oh, whatever........!

Pete ... neither are cureable by the SUBJECT OWNER .. come on Im not some rookie you can make insults to .... nice try though .. go talk in some political forum .... your opinion here means nothing to me

 

[Lee Lansford]

And should you find both proximate external and economic external affecting a subject property, should they be measured apart, described, and perhaps even applied separately, one from the other?

Yes, if there is market data to prove each distinction.

 

[Pittsburgh Pete]

Pete ... neither are cureable by the SUBJECT OWNER .. come on Im not some rookie you can make insults to .... nice try though .. go talk in some political forum .... your opinion here means nothing to me

So pointing out that your subtle distinction is irrelevant or incorrect is an insult. Sorry, you must just be too full of yourself.

Care to comment on how my example fits the definition you've crafted. Or are you too hurt to respond?

And just as if you have two items of functional obsolescence, both would be addressed and their individual impacts on value noted.

 

[PropertyEconomics]

PETE .. I dont care what you say .. and this is my last response to you. Im not "hurt" but your opinion means nothing to me.

 

[CANative]

2. The GSE form asks for H&BU as-improved.

That's not exactly what the form "asks." The form "asks" if the HBU is the present use.

 

[hastalavista]

That's not exactly what the form "asks." The form "asks" if the HBU is the present use.

Is that a difference with a meaningful distinction in the context of what analysis is required to answer the question "yes" or "no" on the form? :new_smile-l:

 

[PropertyEconomics]

Is that a difference with a meaningful distinction in the context of what analysis is required to answer the question "yes" or "no" on the form?

Denis .. it may be ... if the house is constructed (ie a new home) even though EP and EI cannot be met ... the existing improvements will be most probably worth more than the value of the site as vacant ... thus the H&BU as vacant may be a moot point.

 

[Pittsburgh Pete]

PETE .. I dont care what you say .. and this is my last response to you. Im not "hurt" but your opinion means nothing to me.

Your are certainly free to hold incorrect distinctions. I've no problem with that.

 

[hastalavista]

Denis .. it may be ... if the house is constructed (ie a new home) even though EP and EI cannot be met ... the existing improvements will be most probably worth more than the value of the site as vacant ... thus the H&BU as vacant may be a moot point.

(my bold)

:new_smile-l:
It is only "moot" if the H&BU of the site, as vacant, is less than the H&BU of the site, as-improved.
Now, granted, it would be unusual (exceptionally so; and that is why I bolded your "most probably worth more" comment; what you write would be the reasonable expectation) if someone were to develop a new home on a site and it turned out that the site is more valuable as-vacant vs. as-improved.

But it could happen. And, the only way to determine if it has happened is to analyze the site's H&BU as-vacant.

Unless there is another way that escapes me right now?