"Grow Room"?

[Kevin Mc]

I can't say who's right or wrong on this issue, but I will say that I would not comment on it in my report. There are risks, but in my opinion, they are negligible.

Ditto. You are an appraiser, not a cop.

 

[LadybugLover]

Well, as usual, my original post took on a life of its own - there were probably 30 plants growing in pots on a table in the room - there were fans, ducting, extra lighting and the walls were draped in plastic. I think I'm just going to put the picture in the report, state it is a "grow room" not identify the plants as marijuana plants and let the lender decide - or ponder it some more....... I have always maintained that we are the eyes for the lender, and should report what we see and let the lender decide what to do about it -

M

 

[ghrousseau]

Absolutely NOT.

That's private business. I would never share that with anyone. It simply is not my business, nor anyone elses. I wouldn't have even taken a picture of it. And I think, though I am not certain, that even if the state allows the grow room and the pot, the federal government does not, so it is illegal. I just am not a cop. If I wanted to be one, that would have been a lot easier to do than becoming an appraiser.

Agreed. It is kind of like disclosing in the report that the tenants in the 4 unit property I appraised are illegal aliens or convicted child molesters. It's more or less irrelevant to the appraisal process.

 

[The Warrior Monk]

But your claim is the grow room must be reported because the collateral is at greater risk. Why would it matter if it is off site or on site when we know what we are observing causes the client/invester greater risk? I think either your line of demarcation (on site/off site) is incorrect, or your reasons for having to report the grow room (greater risk) are incorrect.

I'm simply reporting the facts. While the collateral is at risk, that not something that I'm particularly concerned about. However, the investor would be.

You're attempting to bring in the straw man argument. Is anyone going to argue that a grow room in the home is not on site? Is anyone going to argue that an owner stating they don't have a permit means they have a permit?

It has everything to do with what we are dealing with. If the owner told a cop the plants in his house are pot plants, before a cop read him his rights, it is not admissible evidence. What the owner tells me, and I report as told to me, is hearsay. It is not evidence. It is far from cut and dry. The owner can very easily change out those plants, say the appraiser is making stuff up about what was said, and accuse the appraiser of libel.

First, I'm not a cop. Second, I'm not going to the police, unless someone on site is being harmed. I'm simply reporting the facts to the investor; I'm not going to hide it. The investor can then decide what they want to do with that information. Simple.

 

[Smokey Bear]

As for poppies, there is no processing. The plants themselves are not illegal. All poppies are potent.

OMG, is THAT why California's state poppy is the California poppy? Hoppy - what do you think?????? ROFLMAO

 

[timd354]

Lady,

The grow room is a real estate matter, the type of plants are not a real estate matter. Disclose just as you would if he was growing lemons indoor. Would you disclose the contents of the entire garden if it as tomatoes, onions, cilantro. Of course not, you'd provide comments about the room and show them a picture.

The type of plants are a real estate matter when the types of plants can cause the property to be seized by the federal government. The appraiser should fully disclose what is being grown in that room since it affects the suitability of that property to be collateral for a loan.

 

[Stone]

Is it?

seems to me like its use is an SFR with a marijuana growing room. If they used that room to house a prostitution ring, would you still say it was an SFR?

Just asking. Maybe I am way off, but I don't think the highest and best use of an SFR is to grow an illegal product. No more than if they used that room to run a gambling outfit on the weekends.

I think you are off on this, probably due to the nature of the product. Even as modified, it still sounds like a SFR. Kind of like my house is a SFR despite my adding extra electric wiring and phone lines to one bedroom that I call an office.

The legality of the operation may be an issue for other parts of the appraisal problem, but it doesn't sound as if the improvements have been modified enough to change the HBU from a SFR, even if the ancillary use isn't legal.

 

[Mztk1]

You're attempting to bring in the straw man argument. Is anyone going to argue that a grow room in the home is not on site? Is anyone going to argue that an owner stating they don't have a permit means they have a permit?

It is not a straw man argument at all, Dave. You simply changed from saying one thing to qualifying what you said to apply to "on-site" situations only. But here is what you originally said:

I think reporting to the entity that will have the largest equity position the fact that their investment could be seized by the government is a rather relevant fact that they would like to know before lending. I certainly would like to know if it was my money on the line.

I simply said there are a lot of things the government can seize a house for. Many of which are things that are off site (I have examples). If your original logic is to hold, then anything we know concerning a particular transaction, onsite or offsite, that can lead to the house being seized, or at least increase the risk of the investment, is, by your own position, to be disclosed. I disagree. Assessing risk is not my business. Appraising real property is. If it is relevant to the value of the house due to condition or environmental issues, I will note the potential hazard without providing a specific analysis of what the problems are, just a general description. If I suspect I am in a meth house, for instance, I will state that there are chemical stains, a chemical odor, and whatever else I may have noted that lead me to believe it was a meth house, but I will not state "The subject is a meth house" because I am not a chemist and I cannot know that for certain.

First, I'm not a cop. Second, I'm not going to the police, unless someone on site is being harmed. I'm simply reporting the facts to the investor; I'm not going to hide it. The investor can then decide what they want to do with that information. Simple.

Are you a botanist? Can you tell the difference between a marijuana plant and ditch weed?

I make no assertions, jump to no conclusions. And I don't put in writing concerning an illegal activity that I cannot back up with expert proof. A photo of the room with the marijuana plants, as you can see from the photo of the ditch weed below, is not proof that the plants are the real McCoy. They have to be sent to a lab for proper analysis. So what you are stating as "fact" you may not be able to prove as "fact" later, where it becomes a "he said, you said" thing, and he has the leverage because he has the plants and he can change them out if he'd like. I understand your sentiment, Dave, and I don't say what I say because I am pro-pot or a pot smoker...I'm not. Heck I don't even drink much if at all these days. It simply is not a can of worms worth opening.

Though I said before that I wouldn't even take a picture, I think the original poster is doing it correctly. Showing a picture of the lights and the plastic on the walls, which may be important because who knows what the plastic is hiding, but not saying what is being grown is the smart solution.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2349/2383558462_721905ed40_o.jpg

 

[Kevin Mc]

Given that I have an extra bedroom, plenty of free time and a serious lack of work these days, perhaps I should consider a grow room. I will look upon my new venture as a highest and best use issue.:icon_mrgreen:

 

[Mztk1]

The type of plants are a real estate matter when the types of plants can cause the property to be seized by the federal government. The appraiser should fully disclose what is being grown in that room since it affects the suitability of that property to be collateral for a loan.

They are not part of the real estate. They are no more a real estate matter as far as the appraiser is concerned, than if while talking to the guy (and this is a real life experience I had) he gives you a card of an organization he is a part of that refuses to pay their income tax because income tax is, in their opinion, illegal. In my case, the guy hadn't paid his income tax is 8 years and he told me that straight out. His house, and all his assets, can be seized over it. Just ask Wesley Snipes. Does his refusal to pay income tax become a part of an appraisal when such failure is disclosed to the appraiser?