• Welcome to AppraisersForum.com, the premier online  community for the discussion of real estate appraisal. Register a free account to be able to post and unlock additional forums and features.

Property with Negative Value

Status
Not open for further replies.
...........Personally, I have yet to see any residential land here in Texas with a negative value.......

I would guess that your practice is limited. The properties exist and they are most likely plentiful. No disrespect, but they exist.
 
The chat here should recognize the differences in negative calculated results from approaches to value, and reconciliations that should reach a null value conclusion versus a negative value conclusion. The debate here needs to see that "zero" is not a value either. Zero is a place holder. If one has no apples, then "zero" is not the number of apples that one has, as one hasn't any. Debating getting a bite of a negative apple versus a zero apple is one rather silly debate if I were asked when hungry.
 
Find me a couple sold properties with negative sales prices....
Agreed. We keep hearing about the theory of negative real estate values but so far I've yet to see any evidence in the form of sales. It would be helpful if a negative-value-advocate would present some "sales" data to support this theory whereby the seller paid another party to take a piece of real estate off of his hands.

Anyone....Anyone...Buhler....Buhler....

The advocates are trying to put the disbelievers into the position of proving a negative, i.e., negative value do not exist, when they haven't provided any evidence of their opinion. If these properties "...exist and are most likely plentiful" I'd think that finding an example or two shouldn't be extremely difficult.

Its all starting to sound like a religious argument.
 
Agreed. We keep hearing about the theory of negative real estate values but so far I've yet to see any evidence in the form of sales. It would be helpful if a negative-value-advocate would present some "sales" data to support this theory whereby the seller paid another party to take a piece of real estate off of his hands.

Anyone....Anyone...Buhler....Buhler....

The advocates are trying to put the disbelievers into the position of proving a negative, i.e., negative value do not exist, when they haven't provided any evidence of their opinion. If these properties "...exist and are most likely plentiful" I'd think that finding an example or two shouldn't be extremely difficult.

Its all starting to sound like a religious argument.

As noted earlier, these properties do not transfer (at least in my experience)...at least not in the normal way. The issue with the market value estimate is that it assumes a transfer, contrary to reality. If a transfer must be assumed under the conditions set forth in the market value definition, then the value in fact will be negative.

I am aware of several situations where the liabilities associated with a property were greater than the market value of a property as if remediated. They did not transfer until the liability issue was addressed, resulting in a positive value for the buyer.
 
I wonder what the value is of a vacant lot located next door to one of those nucular reactors in Japan that's in the news right now?
 
I wonder what the value is of a vacant lot located next door to one of those nucular reactors in Japan that's in the news right now?

Could be worth a lot of money. They'll need storage space for the rubble when they eventually demolish the buildings.
 
I have appraised several properties for a negative value. I have also been a part of transactions where the seller gave the buyer a check at closing for some amount of money. Sure seems like a negative value to me.

The area is the key. Assuming that there are vacant lots available for $3,000.00, the improvements on the subject lot are unusable for whatever reason, and that removal would cost in excess of $3,000.00, how can the value be anything but negative?

Why would someone pay even $1 for a property that will require more money to be immediately spent on it than other vacant properties in the area can be bought for? What happens if the improvements are unusable, and the added costs for insurance and property taxes because of those improvements are greater than the cost of similar vacant lots in the area? What is the value then?
 
Find me a couple sold properties with negative sales prices....
Agreed. We keep hearing about the theory of negative real estate values but so far I've yet to see any evidence in the form of sales. It would be helpful if a negative-value-advocate would present some "sales" data to support this theory whereby the seller paid another party to take a piece of real estate off of his hands.

Anyone....Anyone...Buhler....Buhler....

The advocates are trying to put the disbelievers into the position of proving a negative, i.e., negative value do not exist, when they haven't provided any evidence of their opinion. If these properties "...exist and are most likely plentiful" I'd think that finding an example or two shouldn't be extremely difficult.

Its all starting to sound like a religious argument.

Buhler here,

In cases of partial burnouts particularly, the removal costs can exceed lot value, and the repair costs can be prohibitive to anyone that does not have their own work crew. In these cases, contractors will take the property if there is a check given to them at closing to subsidize their repair work costs.

Zoning changes and physical depreciation can lead to the same thing.
 
The chat here should recognize the differences in negative calculated results from approaches to value, and reconciliations that should reach a null value conclusion versus a negative value conclusion. The debate here needs to see that "zero" is not a value either. Zero is a place holder. If one has no apples, then "zero" is not the number of apples that one has, as one hasn't any. Debating getting a bite of a negative apple versus a zero apple is one rather silly debate if I were asked when hungry.
Duck, You confused me again!
 
I'm all for the market value not existing, since there isn't a "market", which is necessary for a "market value". The explanation of why there is no "marke value" estimated is because the typical buyer should perceive the property as a net liability. Representing the degree of this liability with a negative number would in essence be estimating this perception or a "Market Liability" estimate, although still considered a "market value".

It may be that such a property would have a positive market value in regard to a specific "value in use", which is individual specific.

However, if we consider the parallel found with matter and antimatter.....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Find a Real Estate Appraiser - Enter Zip Code

Copyright © 2000-, AppraisersForum.com, All Rights Reserved
AppraisersForum.com is proudly hosted by the folks at
AppraiserSites.com
Back
Top