Site Vs. Location

[incognito]

I guess you missed the point that my response was written with a certain degree of sarcasm and ridiculousness.

Having said that, you can bet your bankroll that if you are charged with real estate fraud (a FEDERAL OFFENSE- that is why the FBI investigates it), the feds will put you away based on violations of USPSP, which cumulatively contribute to the fraud!

 

[Willie]

Originally posted by Mike Boyd@Nov 14 2005, 03:16 PM
With THAT reasoning, William, why not make only one large adjustment in the grid and then explain what you have done. I maintain each item in the analysis calls for and adjustment or an indication that it is equal. I would rather provide proof or my subjective reasoning for an adjustment rather than lumping two amenities together.

Whatever works, I guess. I have always kept them separate.

Mike at the end of the day we should end up with the same result. If it makes you feel better, I might start putting a + or - in the grid, w' no numbers, except for the site value, of course.

I've seen many appraisers around here just put stuff like 5Ac/50K as subject then C1 = 5Ac/75K C2 = 5Ac/50K and C3 = 125K. The site value accounts and reflects everything else, though it does normally need to be discussed. Comp 1 is in an area where 5 acre tracts sell for 25K more, because of location, or better topo or whatever, and sale 2 is in a very similar and competing area, where sale 3 is in the most prestigious area of the county, and it's site value reflects this location. Blah blah blah.

Again, at the end of the day, we should have the same result.

Again, if you have 8-12 variables, on a more complex farm or piece of land, you'll look foolish trying to extract any given one, let alone all of them.

 

[incognito]

Speaking of USPAP, regarding adjustments for site in the sales comparison approach, SR1-3 states:

...recognize that land is appraised as if vacant and available for development to its highest and best use and that the appraisal of improvements is based on their actual contribution to the site.

However, the comment that follows is of interest (remember comments are "extensions of the provisions, definitions and standard rules", and are interpretations by the ASB). Comment reads:

"The guideline may be modified to reflect the fact that, in various legal and practical situations, a site may have contributory value that differs from the value as if vacant."

I think that pretty well sums up the fact that, technically speaking, land value can not be counted on as the basis for site adjustments, and contributory must be the basis for adjustments. That is not to say that land value and contributory can't be equal.

 

[xm39hnu]

Looks like there's no pat answer. Ya just gotta run what ya brung, explain it well, and hope for the best.

Bill, you wouldn't actually try to do that on the witness stand, would you?

 

[hastalavista]

Originally posted by Bill Geiger@Nov 14 2005, 03:42 PM
Speaking of USPAP, regarding adjustments for site in the sales comparison approach, SR1-3 states:

...recognize that land is appraised as if vacant and available for development to its highest and best use and that the appraisal of improvements is based on their actual contribution to the site.


"The guideline may be modified to reflect the fact that, in various legal and practical situations, a site may have contributory value that differs from the value as if vacant."

Bill-

I agree with your point/conclusion.
I think the first USPAP citation is in reference to appraising Vacant Land, not an improved site. The second reference is in regards to the site's contributory value (and I think the term "site" is not necessarily meaning "land/lot size") is more use specific.

 

[incognito]

Jim,

I may fantasize about being a hot shot in court like that, but I am smart enough to know that they dont serve Bud Light in jail, and judges love throwing out those "Contempt of Court" rulings on wise asses like me!

But I love quoting USPAP in court. It is something most attorneys are not terribly knowledgable of, and it can keep me on even keel at times.

 

[Fred]

Ahhhh .... USPAP is not federal law.

A fact that won['t be lost on the judge or the cross counsel.

 

[xm39hnu]

Bill,
As Steven alluded to, it's not the judge you have to worry about. Opposing counsel is also a professional. Challenge him like that, and you'll motivate him to unleash every bit of cross-examination skill he can muster. The scenario you posted wouldn't necessarily get you cited for contempt, unless the judge had already told you to quit it. But a nice $500 fine for contempt would seem pleasant compared to what opposing counsel would do to you.

And you don't want to let the other inmates know you like Bud Light. Just say "Budweiser," in a deep voice.

 

[xm72mhd]

Originally posted by Bill Geiger@Nov 14 2005, 03:15 PM
But I love quoting USPAP in court. It is something most attorneys are not terribly knowledgable of, and it can keep me on even keel at times.

I'm not sure you've got quite the right information about testifying as an expert witness. I've certainly experienced some who address attorneys and judges in the way you recommend and they have been ineffective for what they were hired and brought to court to do. Generally their entire testimony is disregarded.

 

[incognito]

Hey guys, it was sarcasm! Loosen up!

I have spent plenty of time testifying in court as a professional witness, and in fact would like to think that many of the attorneys I work for think I do a pretty good job...

And, as a Special Master for Brevard County's Value Adjustment Board, a quasi judicial position, where my decisions can ONLY be overturned in the appellate courts, I think I know enough about the decorum necessary in a courtroom setting...

I was just having fun.