Intimidation....I Will Not Be Silenced

[chad hampton]

We get those from professional surveys and people with GiS degrees. professional hydrologists oversee the drawing of flood maps.

Pascal and former uner drivers aren’t out there doing GIS work for municipalities and mapping flood zones.

Every other 3rd party info we get is provided by people who are more qualified than the appraiser to get it. But in this case, you argie for a less qualified individual to go out and do it. But he’s cheaper, and that’s your main rationale.

It’s ok, your group needed these changes cause they felt they would make more money if they got out of work realtors and ex cons to go to field appraisal work. I don’t know why it’s so hard to admit that. This is what I mean by being honest.

I could see if you argued at home inspectors should be the ones out inspecting the home. I wonder why that wasn’t argued?

 

[George Hatch]

Be careful of the company you keep and which side you’re on. Despite what the board USPAP genius claims, the property inspection portion of the appraisal was included in the USPAP manual for my first nine versions of it. But again, you already knew that.

Inasmuch as the facts have already been explained to you (repeatedly) we are no longer talking about your incompetence with the material. Now we are talking about you knowing better but engaging in dishonesty anyways.

Speaking of which, the reason you couldn't send unlicensed runners out on those assignments is because you certified personal inspection in those reports, as per their user-driven expectations. Not because of the requirements in SR1. By contrast, LYING about personal inspection is a violation of SR2-3, not because USPAP requires personal inspection but because it prohibits lying in an appraisal report.

 

[chad hampton]

More claims you know are lies. You claim 25 years as an appraiser but you don't know what USPAP is. Why would anyone put any stock in anything you have to say? Hard to imagine you can write a credible appraisal.

Don’t fall for their technicalities. If it were up to them, most people on this board would’ve thought the inspection being marked as significant never really did exist.

And I try to write 20-30 a month in my spare time.

 

[J Grant]

Let me ask you something, do you personally measure the site size? Or, do you get that from another party?

I think we could agree that site size is a very important property feature, no? Yet, you take the site size from a third party source, no? Do you cite that third party as having provided significant assistance in your appraisal? Should they be required to have an appraisal license? If you really believe what you have been pushing, surely you do that. Right? Show us a report where you cited such assistance.

What about flood zone information? Zoning? Even age? Don't you use third parties for that information?

That is the type of contradiction that drove the ASB to edit that AO. That AO was basically saying that obtaining certain types of third party information was significant assistance, but using other types of third party information wasn't. That makes no sense. It is all property characteristics that SR 1-2 says you must identify.

You are not the first to conflate tradition and/or user requirements with USPAP. It is a common malady, even among folks who have taken the class 9 or more times.

And, by the way, I am providing the explanation for those who might honestly want to understand the issue, knowing full well that some will just dismiss it and continue to post false claims.

Not your fault, you are just the messenger trying to explain it

However, fwiw, this was HORRIBLE reasoning on the part of the ASB, and they should all resign becaue of it. not that they will of course.

Indeed,, appraisers use third-party data such as flood zones, site size, etc from other sources, and we do not claim those sources provided significant appraisal assistance.
BUT, those data sources provided property information for OTHER PURPOSES besides an appraisal. These sources would continue providing those flood zones and site sizes if all appraisers dropped dead and nobody ever used an appraisal again. Which is a wish list for some, but I digress.

Sending a person out to inspect a subject property FOR THE PURPOSE OF AN APPRAISAL USE is imo is a form of significant assistance because the reason that person went and inspected the subject property was to enable an appraisal to be developed which will rely on their inspection (oops, call it data collection )

 

[DWiley]

We get those from professional surveys and people with GiS degrees. professional hydrologists oversee the drawing of flood maps.

Pascal and former u er drivers aren’t out there doing GIS work for municipalities and mapping flood zones.

Every other 3rd party info we get is provided by people who are more qualified than the appraiser to get it. But in this case, you are due for a less qualified individual to go out and do it. But he’s cheaper, and that’s your main rationale.

It’s ok, your group needed these changes cause they felt they would make more money if they got out of work realtors and ex cons to go to field appraisal work. I don’t know why it’s so hard to admit that. This is what I mean by being honest.

I could see if you argued at home inspectors should be the ones out inspecting the home. I wonder why that wasn’t argued?

Nice deflection, but your argument is that if someone else inspects and gives you data, then they should be noted as having provided assistance. Whether they have credentials or not is irrelevant to the question of whether assistance was provided to you.

And, if a data collector is used, then that is fully disclosed so that the reader knows the data source. They know that the data come from someone who is actually required to have at least some formal training in property inspection, unlike an appraiser who may (or may not) have any such training.

And, by the way, what about the comp data? Do you cite the agent as having provided assistance, since it was the agent who inspected the comp and provided the data you relied on when you provided the quality and condition rating for the comps? As for your deflection, what training is that agent required to have related to inspecting property?

There are so many holes in your position that it resembles Swiss cheese. That is common when arguments are based on emotion rather than logic.

 

[chad hampton]

And we haven’t even gotten into how a group that is tasked with maintaining and protecting the public trust allows, unlicensed, untrained individuals to go into peoples homes under the guise of being there for the appraisal.

And they specifically held board meetings to talk about removing that language from their documents. Did nobody bring up their mission statement?

Maybe Frank can fix that organization?

 

[DWiley]

And I try to write 20-30 a month in my spare time.

Congratulations! That is more per month than 75% of appraisers. That is a pretty good "part time" gig for you. You must be doing something right.

 

[George Hatch]

And we haven’t even gotten into how a group that is tasked with maintaining and protecting the public trust allows, unlicensed, untrained individuals to go into peoples homes under the guise of being there for the appraisal.

And they specifically held board meetings to talk about removing that language from their documents. Did nobody bring up their mission statement?

Maybe Frank can fix that organization?

TAF doesn't allow or prohibit anyone to do anything. They don't issue appraiser licenses or punish appraisers for their conduct or "permit" appraisers to enter peoples' homes. TAF establishes appraiser qualifications criteria and appraisal standards. The GSEs established their own user-driven requirements.

 

[J Grant]

Nice deflection, but your argument is that if someone else inspects and gives you data, then they should be noted as having provided assistance. Whether they have credentials or not is irrelevant to the question of whether assistance was provided to you.

And, if a data collector is used, then that is fully disclosed so that the reader knows the data source. They know that the data come from someone who is actually required to have at least some formal training in property inspection, unlike an appraiser who may (or may not) have any such training.

And, by the way, what about the comp data? Do you cite the agent as having provided assistance, since it was the agent who inspected the comp and provided the data you relied on when you provided the quality and condition rating for the comps? As for your deflection, what training is that agent required to have related to inspecting property?

There are so many holes in your position that it resembles Swiss cheese. That is common when arguments are based on emotion rather than logic.

Oh Danny... what "formal training" do the PDR people get? A two-day class? A two-hour class?

Typically, any appraiser with a license, including a trainee license, accumulates lots of training inspection hours. The problems go deeper than that, however. Letting a third partu with nothing at stake do the onsite visit, which imparts crucial information to an appraiser beyond a list of "data," deprives the appraiser of fully seeing, hearing and noting a lot avout the proeroty and of coure deprives the appraiser of being able to talk to people onsite, such plus a homeowner, builder, or agent, who can provide information and calling those people up, if they will even answer, is not the same as meeing them onsite. I have gotten lots of information that way. The appraiser also gets to see the neighborhood and other homes and influences on the subject street that can impact value and marketability.

In addition, newer appraisers will lack field experience by staying chained at a desk and rarely going out to properties.

 

[chad hampton]

Congratulations! That is more per month than 75% of appraisers. That is a pretty good "part time" gig for you. You must be doing something right.

Thanks. I have some good clients. I’m trying to keep them for a few more years before this all goes away. A lot of forces working against the independent appraiser.

Many of the good ones I knew have left. Guess I partially have too.