Site Vs. Location

[xm39hnu]

Just finished a really uuuuugly appraisal of a SFR in a remote rural area of the county. My wife (mentor) and I got into it over site values. Subject was on 16 acres, most of the comps were on similar sized sites. One, however, was in a nice subdivision in a small rural town. All the site adjustments for the other 5 comps were strictly excess land value applied to the difference in site size ($1,200/a). The S/D comp, on 3.3 acres, was a diffferent kettle of fish: That land's worth 5K/acre, with plenty of support from recent vacant lot sales.

Tracy maintained that the difference in land value is absorbed in the location adjustment, so the site adjustment should be consistent with the other sales. I took the position that the difference in land value should be the adjustment. She won the argument, because land value is reflected in location adjustment, and adding an extra kicker for site value would be double dipping. ( I had adjusted $25K for location, and wanted to add a Site value adjustment. She caught it on review.)

And before anyone asks whether it was truly "comparable," the answer is "NO." But with only nine sales in 18 months to choose from, it was one of the "most similar" (i.e., in this case, "least dissimilar") sales. We didn't give it much weight.

My current ruminations lead me to conclude that the Site line is for site quality, of which location is one component. So "Site" should bear on issues of geometry, topography, access, and appeal which are peculiar to the site without regard to its location.

So what do y'all use the Site line for when you have location adjustments? Can you give an example of when you'd have both a location as well as a site adjustment?

 

[Otis Key]

I side with the mentor. :lol:

Sure - mountain side sites. One site steeply sloping and the other nearly flat, resulting in an increased NET usable area, and then the nearly flat has a better view which could be in view adjustment or location.





Didn't they teach you in husband school to not argue? You're always going to come out on the wrong end of the argument. :rainfro: :rofl:

 

[Chris Colston]

My current ruminations lead me to conclude that the Site line is for site quality, of which location is one component. So "Site" should bear on issues of geometry, topography, access, and appeal which are peculiar to the site without regard to its location.

So what do y'all use the Site line for when you have location adjustments? Can you give an example of when you'd have both a location as well as a site adjustment?

Highest & Best use, size and utility. Remember you have to first consider the site as if vacant. Location may be a factor in the site adjustment but also remember in real estate, it's location, location location which is why it has a seperate line on the grid. If the sites were similar in size, zoning (HB&U) and utility with the only difference a gated community vs an open community the adjustment would be in LOCATION. Same scenerio only one site is larger and can also support a larger house (utility), the adjustment would be a two line adjustment, one for site, the other location.

BTW....take Otis' advice, the wife, especially if she is the mentor, is ALWAYS correct! :rofl:

 

[Mike Garrett RAA]

hmmmm, interesting. Do you claim a Jurisdictional Exception when working for a wife? :rofl:

I think we need to think in terms of three things that could affect value when it comes to the "location" of property.

1. Location, ie. busy street, quiet street, cul-de-sac,...physical location. Differences in subdivisions, as an example.

2. View. Very important IN MY MARKET. Also could be site orientation in the case of a solar lot but that isn't too often these days.

3. Size. Especially when our builders are charging rather large premiums these days. I also use this box to make an adjustment for corner vs interior lot, if appropriate.


Two schools of thought when it comes to sites One says a lot is just a lot and we don't need adjustments. The other is .... a prudent buyer would probably pay more for a substantially larger lot. Quite often I do all the other adjustments first and if I find a substantial difference of, say, $5,000 or $10,000 then it probably is attributable to the site and it could be location, view, or size.

So, am I right? Who knows. What I do know is I should be explaining any adjustments for those line items.

 

[xm72mhd]

Originally posted by Otis Key@Nov 13 2005, 08:19 AM
I side with the mentor. :lol:

Sure - mountain side sites. One site steeply sloping and the other nearly flat, resulting in an increased NET usable area, and then the nearly flat has a better view which could be in view adjustment or location.





Didn't they teach you in husband school to not argue? You're always going to come out on the wrong end of the arguement. :rainfro: :rofl:

Yeah Jim,

You're supposed to loose and that's it. Commends to you for admitting she's your boss, now just admit she's smarter and always right.

Now Otis,

You're talking like a flat lander. Where I am the remote stuff on the hill gets a premium except for downtown Denver or the DIA. That goes for the Broadmoor too. There is some of that million dollar + stuff that if you walk too fast on the deck you may never return. So one man's poison is another's meat or something like that. So is it site or location?

Hey, Lee Ann found a spell checker and I read it the morning and just downloaded it and it works!

EDIT: OK just this once I'm going to admit Mike is right! This is historic folks.

 

[Otis Key]

Originally posted by Chris Colston@Nov 13 2005, 09:37 AM

BTW....take Otis' advice, the wife, especially if she is the mentor, is ALWAYS correct! :rofl:

I wasn't married for 25 years to not learn something. :rainfro: :rofl: :rainfro: :rofl:

Hence, it's always "Yes Dear!"

Edd - you posted at the same time as me.

Hey, Lee Ann found a spell checker and I read it the morning and just downloaded it and it works!

We always understood you. LOL

 

[Mike Garrett RAA]

No kissing up Edd....I am still not buying you a drink at the meeting! I want you perfectly sober while sitting next to Stewart :rofl:

 

[Richard Carlsen]

All I can say is what I say in every appraisal I do:

"Site value adjustments in the grid are based on site net values and not on size or frontage alone."

The adjustment is made to what the comps and subject's site is worth "as vacant".

 

[Timothy Wixted]

Originally posted by eddgillespie@Nov 13 2005, 09:52 AM

You're supposed to loose and that's it.

Hey, Lee Ann found a spell checker and I read it the morning and just downloaded it and it works!

Unfortunately Edd, your spell checker won't change "loose" to "lose". :rofl:

Tim

 

[xm72mhd]

When ever I tangle with my wife, which is ever more infrequent, I am loose due to losing. Oh well, I tried to save face. Anybody got a better spellchecker? Just chill out, you know what I meant.