Earnest – I felt sick when I read your post. Please contact me if you need support. I am praying for you and know how much this weights on you. SCSGLA@YAHOO.COM

A friend of mine has started wearing a body cam!

Yes, he should have withdrawn from the engagement. I have done this many times. We have to be willing to loose some business. Not all business is good business. It is called risk management and as a business person this should always be at the front of our business decisions. It is sad he going thu this for no good reason. When you have that bad feeling about an engagement, Walk Away!

Bill Johnson: Being from California, you make the perfect argument. So, Prop 13 impacts taxes and is the taxing agency. Now… along comes a government project that involves the taking of private property for the public good, whereby an offer of fair and equitable compensation to the property owner is mandatory. They offer the old couple that hasn’t moved for years in order to keep their tax base making them an offer based on the $500 annual tax and associated assessed value. They offer the couple that just purchased their home based on what they just paid, which is considered the current fair market value for taxation purposes. With the understanding that the government agency that sets the assessed value and taxes is also the government agency needing to take the land, and that must comply with federal law regarding fair and just compensation, for taking land subject to eminent domain action. Which one is the fair offer to the property owners; which offer is truly fair and equitable as required under the law, and why?

The government and those that write the rules have made it illegal (a punishable violation) to refuse an appraisal assignment in an area which consists primarily of non-whites.

The government and those that write the rules also state the purpose of an appraisal is to determine the value of the home/property in its market setting, so an underwriter can make a lending decision. Back in the day, this protected the lender from lending more than the home/property is worth. It also protected the borrower from paying more than the home/property is worth.

Now, in the 21st century, the same government and those that write the rules are telling the public “if you don’t like the value, turn the appraiser into HUD!” And there are those out there that give less than a damn about the appraiser’s lively hood. It’s all about getting the loan. When the appraiser does their job as required by the government and those that write the rules, and the number falls short…the borrower “Plays that Race Card” just like Ms. Fudge and her PAVE cronies have preached for the last two+ years.

So, appraisers, as long as you remain in the profession, regardless of whether you’re appraising for lenders or doing non-lender work, the government and those that write the rules have planted the seed. In today’s world, every time you walk out the door for an assignment, you risk the excruciating pain of being called a racist and being turned into HUD, VA, or whomever.

Yep, you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t, and the government and those that write the rules could give less than a damn. And sadly, I don’t see a single appraisal organization out there standing up for the profession. It is indeed very sad times in the real estate appraisal profession.

You stated that you identified a hostile attitude early on. My point being, nip it in the bud before the problems begin.

If I had a borrower say “Don’t make me play the race card on you”, I would turn back the assignment to the lender. How can you possibly be impartial after you have been threatened?

The county like an insurance agency wants to make/take money but not give it back. Especially at their own going rate. Simple.

With CA capping property values (accessed / taxed values) at no more than 2% per year from the purchase price, accessed values are worthless in CA. Not unusual to see similar homes on the same street with like property values where one person pays $500 per year (old home), and another pays pays $20,000 per year (new purchase).

Seek the truth.

Many lenders want the tax card included in the report, clearly showing the assessed value, which is factual information. Yet, the tax card also often includes incorrect information regarding the square footage, which we have to defend against, but never against the assessed value.

Mr. Assessor: How is it that USPAP clearly address mass appraisal in Standards 5 & 6, also clearly indicating that mass-appraisal mirrors many of the standards that apply to the rest of us, and then they wish to wash their hands of that relationship when confronted? Just curious why USPAP goes into such detail when “that doesn’t apply to us” claims are almost unchallenged?

You could not be more incorrect in your assumption. Stating what the assessor has valued/assessed a property at is a piece of factual information, has nothing to do with USPAP. Please, we do not need false info out there.

Yeah where is he getting these ideas from? Just repeating works of someone else, while holding an appraisers license, does not constitute ‘valuation service’. Not as long as you make a simple disclaimer; this is the assessors figure, or this is the avm figure. Nor would saying something like; zillow is full of you know what and you can’t rely on that number, that’s not ‘review services’ either. Repeating what an avm or assessor says, irregardless of licensing does not constitute ‘valuation practice’.

It’s been my experience that sleeping through uspap brings about the best memory retention of the subject matter. Considering we’re forced like economic slaves to take that same damned class every two years. There is a sort of brain drain effect created by the constant need to monetize the class again and again, to so pointlessly reform some of the content every other year. This creates a lot of confusion among the never ending procession of faux educators and the next approved uspap instructor in line. Take that online, get the class done in half the time.

Complained it was too low, not too high.