Thirdhand Smoke And Home Value

[Meandering]

the ability to preach to others about how superior one thinks they are

You know what Darwin said about organisms that are allergic to their environment?

They need obamacare to fix it for them.

.

 

[Mr Rex]

After reading a handful of the OPs posts/rants/advertisements it is obvious that he could not exist or persevere with so much obvious bias as a fee appraiser. Thank god he has his statistics to pay the bills otherwise.

 

[glenn walker]

You know what Darwin said about organisms that are allergic to their environment?

They need obamacare to fix it for them.

.

After reading a handful of the OPs posts/rants/advertisements it is obvious that he could not exist or persevere with so much obvious bias as a fee appraiser. Thank god he has his statistics to pay the bills otherwise.

YA THINK : ) LOL

 

[RCA]

where did this statistic come from? i don't recall being polled about smoking as an appraiser.

do you read what you write??? there are no concrete facts, everything is "could" or "can" or "may" - not a single "does".




i am suddenly having flashbacks to an episode of south park with rob reiner as the lead "guest" star...

where did this statistic come from? i don't recall being polled about smoking as an appraiser.

do you read what you write??? there are no concrete facts, everything is "could" or "can" or "may" - not a single "does".




i am suddenly having flashbacks to an episode of south park with rob reiner as the lead "guest" star...

1. The best evidence that I have in terms of what percentage of appraisers smoke is based on my own experience in the Silicon Valley. I have worked in appraiser offices where there were a number of appraisers. And actually none of them smoked, although in one case the head gal often seemed to have had the smell of pot on her breath - a decade ago and I would guess a very few others indulged in this habit. %5-10% makes sense in this area, from a couple of different viewpoints: (a) The overall percentage of the population in California that smokes is 11%. (b) The percentage of smokers is negatively correlated to social status and income (i.e. "socio-economic status"). (c) The Silicon Valley is higher status and income, therefore we would expect fewer smokers. (d) My observation from having lived here 30+ years is that 5-10% correlates with observation. (f) Thus I would stick with that opinion for the area where I work. Caveat: I would expect it to be higher in other areas of California such as LA, Riverside, Sacramento.

2. The poll was just that, it was a poll. It was sponsored by Pfizer, which has its own large pharmaceutical research departments. Thus I would give it some credibility. But, it was nonetheless just a poll among real estate agents in Ontario. But polls are better than nothing and quite legitimate references when backed by the likes of a research organization. Further (a) Ontario is a cold climate in winter; ventilation is reduced to keep heating costs down, thus we would expect more of an impact there than climates further south. One could argue that homes in the south have high air conditioning costs in the summer months and thus ventilation will be reduced there as well - except that in states such as Texas, electricity is relatively cheap (so cheap that Solar is not that popular).

No doubt I am getting flack from cigarette smokers -- most likely from regions where there is a higher percentage of cigarette smokers, lower economic status (just perhaps) or the existence of other conditions unlike those where I live and work.

 

[RCA]

After reading a handful of the OPs posts/rants/advertisements it is obvious that he could not exist or persevere with so much obvious bias as a fee appraiser. Thank god he has his statistics to pay the bills otherwise.

Well, I would admit my own bias. However, there is soooooo much academic research out there about this subject, we don't need to rely on bias. We can insist on scientific proof. And, I am sorry to say, it exists in abundance. And there are labs, that can go in and take samples from a house and report numerous toxins in drywall and on surfaces. So, there is actually considerable risk in dealing with this matter; especially in a state like California. --- Hmmmm. Would you like to go to court against a young couple who just bought a home to raise their family in, thinking it was free of toxins, when it wasn't. Young good looking couple, nice personalities. A defense attorney's worst nightmare? In California? Good luck on that - as if something like leaking windows weren't bad enough!!!

 

[Tim The Enchanter]

Hmmmm. Would you like to go to court against a young couple who just bought a home to raise their family in, thinking it was free of toxins, when it wasn't. Young good looking couple, nice personalities. A defense attorney's worst nightmare? In California?

Has this ever happened?

 

[Meandering]

Well, I would admit my own bias. However, there is soooooo much academic research out there about this subject, we don't need to rely on bias. We can insist on scientific proof. And, I am sorry to say, it exists in abundance. And there are labs, that can go in and take samples from a house and report numerous toxins in drywall and on surfaces. So, there is actually considerable risk in dealing with this matter; especially in a state like California. --- Hmmmm. Would you like to go to court against a young couple who just bought a home to raise their family in, thinking it was free of toxins, when it wasn't. Young good looking couple, nice personalities. A defense attorney's worst nightmare? In California? Good luck on that - as if something like leaking windows weren't bad enough!!!

Actually you are getting push back because of your bias of a social issue, you are trying to overlay on real estate.

If we follow your logic, 11% of buyers are smokers, and therefore, are due a discounted price when they buy a home where someone else was a smoker. And, they are due that discount because???? They don't smell what you smell.



Why should smokers get a cheaper home than non-smokers? Because non-smokers think they smell something?

If your property smells of something, it might limit the pool of potential buyers, but might now warrant a discount because a buyer does not have as heightened a sense of smell as you do.

If you are looking at stains that have not been clean, either from smoke, or urine, or anything else, it is just an indication of deferred maintenance, and should be a hint to look for larger maintenance issues. But really, would you expect a moldy home to receive an additional negative adjustment, because you think you detected a smell of smokers too?

The very same thing can be said of pets.

Good agents will ask a potential buyer ahead of time if they are allergic to pets then check the seller's disclosures to see if pets are, or have recently lived in the home. There is nothing worse for an agent, than to take a potential buyer to a home and the buyer breaks out in allergy hives.

yet no negative adjustment is warranted for pets, even if, the buyer starts heaving and can't breath. Because the buyer just won't buy it, no matter what.

Your bias, not ours.

.

 

[Tim The Enchanter]

Substitute smoke for curry. Or insert your favorite extra pungent, nay stinky!, ingredients here.

 

[RCA]

Has this ever happened?

Well it happened with leaking windows, first hand experience, and I happened to overhear the opposition attorneys chattering when I inspected the house - and yes that was what they were saying. I would guess, some deal was reached before it ever went to court .....

As to whether such cases for toxins, in general, exist. Certainly. Meth is of course a notorious breadwinner for attorneys. But also many other kinds of contaminants, such as asbestos, lead, oil by-products and so on.

As to cigarette smoke? Well this is why I said that I would recommend that anyone who wants to be sure they are moving into a contamination free home get something in writing from the previous owners that they never allowed smoking in the home. If you have statements and can prove that they are fallacious, you would have remedy. Without some kind of statement, I would guess that you may have problems, as smoking is so prevalent, especially going back before the 70's that we can assume that cigarette toxins were at least at some time in far past in an older home; and may or may have not degraded to harmless chemicals over time. I would guess, that it is "buyer beware". In a newer home, with only one owner, there would be little defense if a statement that the home was free of tobacco by-products were proven fallacious.

Most tobacco users would likely be smart enough not to sign any kind of statement that there home was free of tobacco residues, even if they carefully covered up the smell through ozone, painting and cleaning.

End-result: You go into a home that you are appraising for refinance, you see the occupant smokes cigarettes and all the rooms have a strong cigarette smell. Do you adjust or not? You might make some kind of negative adjustment based on the Ontario poll and any other evidence that is more local. You might just mention your observations in the report. It would certainly depend on the location and market conditions. But it is something to think about. If lenders were really interested in the saleability of a home down the road in case of foreclosure, they might be concerned. But, as we know, that sort of thing is not really at the top of their priority list, other than being a check-off item for FNMA or some guideline they are required to follow.

 

[RCA]

Actually you are getting push back because of your bias of a social issue, you are trying to overlay on real estate.

If we follow your logic, 11% of buyers are smokers, and therefore, are due a discounted price when they buy a home where someone else was a smoker. And, they are due that discount because???? They don't smell what you smell.



Why should smokers get a cheaper home than non-smokers? Because non-smokers think they smell something?

If your property smells of something, it might limit the pool of potential buyers, but might now warrant a discount because a buyer does not have as heightened a sense of smell as you do.

If you are looking at stains that have not been clean, either from smoke, or urine, or anything else, it is just an indication of deferred maintenance, and should be a hint to look for larger maintenance issues. But really, would you expect a moldy home to receive an additional negative adjustment, because you think you detected a smell of smokers too?

The very same thing can be said of pets.

Good agents will ask a potential buyer ahead of time if they are allergic to pets then check the seller's disclosures to see if pets are, or have recently lived in the home. There is nothing worse for an agent, than to take a potential buyer to a home and the buyer breaks out in allergy hives.

yet no negative adjustment is warranted for pets, even if, the buyer starts heaving and can't breath. Because the buyer just won't buy it, no matter what.

Your bias, not ours.

.

You are reading quite a bit into what I said. The deductions you make seem logical, provided you make some unstated assumptions.

The reality is that when most non-smokers inspect a potential buy, they will believe what they see, especially when the majority of homes in the neighborhood are smoke free.

HOWEVER, some buyers, for example, those who have babies, toddlers or children, especially mothers, will be VERY concerned about the issue of hidden toxins (meth toxins are largely unobservable, except through their effects on health). If they are smart, they get a signed statement. If the seller is smart and knows that there are toxins, he won't sign - because, at least in a decent market, some other buyer will come along who doesn't sense a problem or care about the possibility of a hidden problem.

HOWEVER, I would warn, that as time goes on, as these problems become more manifest through increasing cancer rates and allergies in children, more people will become aware of the hidden dangers of buying a used home and there will be increasing risks associated with tobacco and other product contaminated homes.