I suspect that a fee cap is part of the agenda behind promoting this bill.
What I believe is this:
If one accepts that there is an argument to set mandatory minimum fees, I don't see it as a big leap to then argue that mandatory maximum fees should also apply.
The argument for minimum fees is that appraisers should be paid a fair fee for their work and the current system does not provide for that (a hard argument to make in some parts of the country at this time).
The argument for maximum fees is that if appraisers have a minimum fee that is fair, then the consumer should be protected against unfair/higher fees. In other words, if the state provides a minimum with the intent of ensuring the appraisers are paid something they consider is "fair", then the state certainly has the right to impose a maximum to ensure that consumers are also paying something they consider "fair".
Much of the so-called pro-appraiser legislation has resulted in consequences that are less than pro-appraiser. For the boots-on-the-ground appraiser, whether they were intended or unintended consequences doesn't seem too relevant on the street. The fact that their solution created new or additional adverse conditions for appraisers is what is relevant on the street.
Open the door for a state-imposed minimum fee and that opens the door for a state-imposed maximum fee, IMNSHO.
