PAREA program

[Surf Cat]

WRT "Restorative Competitive Value", Whatever value types the appraiser is using, the definition has to be cited in the report.


View attachment 107902

As for "needs to include" in an assignment that need will be a function of the user's requirements. If an appraiser wanted to add an extra value and the comps that go with the additional value that's probably okay, but merely adding a different value into a report on the appraiser's discretion doesn't make it meaningful to the users. Not unless they're asking for it

I didn't take the class so I don't know what the context of that paragraph meant. To me, "restorative competitive value" has to be defined. Just like there's a methodology to developing the cost approach, a methodology has to be developed to determine such a value. There has to be some sort of guidelines in place for appraisers to follow if RCV is requested.

That said, I really don't believe it's the place of the appraiser to remedy economic disparities.

 

[George Hatch]

I don't see a request for an additional value under a different definition being an example of appraiser advocacy. Liquidation Value, Disposition Value, Insurable Value, Fair Market Value (for IRS), etc.

We have no reason to get emotionally involved with this type of request. It's just business regardless of any political baggage.

In my view, if they can ask for a certain type of value then we can provide it. How they use what they asked for is on them, not the appraiser. What we can't do is mischaracterize or conflate that outcome with MV as defined.

 

[TerryRohrer]

I don't see a request for an additional value under a different definition being an example of appraiser advocacy. Liquidation Value, Disposition Value, Insurable Value, Fair Market Value (for IRS), etc.

We have no reason to get emotionally involved with this type of request. It's just business regardless of any political baggage.

In my view, if they can ask for a certain type of value then we can provide it. How they use what they asked for is on them, not the appraiser. What we can't do is mischaracterize or conflate that outcome with MV as defined.

Much like Public Interest Value. Couching advocacy within the definition so the least ethical and competent among us can have a hey day providing signatures under the client's opinion of value. Any difference between restorative competitive value will be a formulaic modification to market value, and should be outside the appraisal function. Bureaucrats can lie, cheat, and steal with abandon on a one page form that no one takes accountability for. And the same approach should be taken to conservation easements, subsidy valuation, Community Trust valuations, etc.

"Public interest value represents the non-economic worth of assets, such as land or services, based on social, environmental, or cultural benefits rather than market income. Driven by public policy, it emphasizes conservation, preservation, and the common good, often determining value based on "highest and best use" for the community."

 

[George Hatch]

Could be. I think much depends on how the definition is worded and which explicit assumptions are included. If they think that value means (neighborhood location is irrelevant) and the appraiser proceeds that way then the appraiser is saying what they do and doing what they said.

It's when the appraiser says one thing but does another that we're getting into misleading and advocacy. Market Value does not mean "highest supportable value" that some of the clients want.

$500k - Market Value
$600k - Restorative Competitive Value (see Restorative Competitive Value addendum w/definition and RCV comparables analysis on pg 12 of this report)

Then a casual reader doesn't miss the point that they're looking at 2 very difference expressions of value. And the appraiser doesn't get criticized for it when the property ends up actually selling in the market for MV and not RCV.

 

[TerryRohrer]

The only reason to intermingle the social justice angle with the valuation function is to lend it credibility it doesn't have, regardless of how it is done. Not that the valuation function today, on the whole, has a lot of remaining credibility, but if that is diminished any further, then the definition of value should simply be changed to "that number expressed by the undersigned." Save all the time and ink spilled on wasted bullsh*t and pretense for some meaningful task, if any remain.

 

[Surf Cat]

Much like Public Interest Value. Couching advocacy within the definition so the least ethical and competent among us can have a hey day providing signatures under the client's opinion of value. Any difference between restorative competitive value will be a formulaic modification to market value, and should be outside the appraisal function. Bureaucrats can lie, cheat, and steal with abandon on a one page form that no one takes accountability for. And the same approach should be taken to conservation easements, subsidy valuation, Community Trust valuations, etc.

"Public interest value represents the non-economic worth of assets, such as land or services, based on social, environmental, or cultural benefits rather than market income. Driven by public policy, it emphasizes conservation, preservation, and the common good, often determining value based on "highest and best use" for the community."

At least Public Interest Value is defined. Restorative Competitive Value is not a standard industry term.

 

[TerryRohrer]

At least Public Interest Value is defined. Restorative Competitive Value is not a standard industry term.

Defined, but can't be measured except in the mind of the beholder. This restorative crap is the same concept with a different name.

 

[George Hatch]

I would not use a definition of value without a reference, or without some indication of its application. Similar to the explicit assumptions included in the definition of MV itself. I need a definition that means the same thing to me that it means to the cat lady sociology professor that's trying to tell me to deny the effects of location, location, location.

Aside from that, if they can articulate the question they're asking then I can respond to that question in a manner that will be "meaningful and not misleading to intended users". I don't need to agree with their politics or motivations, I just need to shut up and appraise.

IMO

 

[TerryRohrer]

Appraisers need to tell the politicians, pundits, and pinheads to pound sand. Everything they desire can be done without appraisers, and appraisers shouldn't be bending over and begging, "do me, but be sure to use a definition."

 

[Surf Cat]

Appraisers need to tell the politicians, pundits, and pinheads to pound sand. Everything they desire can be done without appraisers, and appraisers shouldn't be bending over and begging, "do me, but be sure to use a definition."

I don't think we're going to have to worry about it. With the whole residential, real estate valuation world jumping on the AMC, unlicensed property data collectors, hybrids, uad 3.6 on an ipad with Lidar measuring, they obviously aren't interested in the classic appraisal as defined. Whomever wants a Restorative Competitive Value is certainly not going to want to pay for it.

The powers that be won't even pay a reasonable and customary fee for one opinion of value let alone two values in one assignment.