Mary Cummins, Real Estate Appraiser, Real Estate Appraisal, Los Angeles, California, Mary Cummins.

Mary Cummins is a real estate appraiser in Los Angeles, California with 38+ years of experience. Cummins provides real estate appraisals for banks, lenders, mortgage brokers, Appraisal Management Companies (AMCs), lawyers, Courts, factors and private parties for lending, lawsuits, probate, estate planning, divorce and all types of litigation. Cummins provides 1004, 1073, 1025 and other form reports, narrative reports and historical appraisals besides real estate research and appraisal advice.

Tuesday, October 5, 2021

Different types of home valuations - appraisal by a licensed appraiser, CMA, BPO, AVM by NAR, Mary Cummins

UPDATE: 03/07/2022 I wrote this article originally just to discuss the different types of real estate valuations. In hindsight I should have gone into when to use each type of valuation.

AVM: Feel free to look at AVMs for entertainment value only. They are not accurate unless you're looking at an average tract home in a tract development of average quality, condition properties with no views in the flats which was built more recently. Even then they are not specifically accurate. The location in the development matters.

AVMs are not accurate with older homes, homes with views, upgraded homes in better than average condition, homes in less than average condition, homes on the edge of two very different neighborhoods, custom homes, homes on sloped lots, homes on odd lots like flag lots...anything out of the ordinary. If you have an upgraded home in great condition, AVM will probably be lower. If you have a home in horrible condition, AVM will probably be higher.

VALUATION: Valuation are generally for lenders so it doesn't concern the lay person homeowner.

CMA, BPO: These are generally just to get a range of values to list your property for sale. Back in my day you would list your property no more than 5% over current market value. If you list too high, you will lose potential buyers. If you list too low, you'll get a confusing bidding war.

DESKTOP: There is no interior or exterior inspection. If your home is in great condition and fully upgraded, the value will come in lower. If your home is in horrible condition, the value will come in higher.

HYBRID: While a person takes photos and measures the interior of the home, they are not the appraiser who writes the report. The appraiser has not seen the home, the neighborhood or the sold comparables. The appraiser will most likely be more conservative. If your home is in great condition and fully upgraded, the value may come in lower. If your home is in horrible condition, the value may come in higher.

FULL APPRAISAL: The actual appraiser sees the interior/exterior of your home, the sold/listed comparables and has driven the neighborhood. They have the best feel of the actual value of the home. If your home is upgraded in good condition, you will get full market value for those improvements. Market value is the market's reaction to the improvements. If you installed a gold toilet and $10,000 worth of rare fruit trees, you won't get added value for that. If you added a new room and bathroom, you will get added value for that though it may not be the full cost of the addition. Not all improvements give 100% return on value. Some give more and some give less.

If your home has a view, is on a slope, is a custom home, is in great condition, has lots of upgrades and is in a good specific location in the neighborhood (on a cul-de-sac at the top of a hill), you will get a higher valuation with a full appraisal. If your home is in fair condition, has issues, is in a bad specific location in the neighborhood (facing the alley, near industrial, next to a tall apartment building), you will probably get a lower value than a desktop/drive-by.

I've recently had homeowners tell me they had a drive-by, desktop or hybrid and the value came in what they felt was low. The lender prefers the drive-by, desktop, hybrid because they're cheaper for the lender. The borrower is still paying the same appraisal fee in the cost of the loan whether they realize it or not. The owner then ordered a full appraisal and the value was higher. The value was most likely higher because all of the main factors of value i.e. quality, condition, location, view... could be seen and known by the appraiser. A great view can add 20% to the value of a home. Choose the type of valuation you need.

ORIGINAL 10/05/2021: From the National Association of Realtors. I agree with their brochure, definitions and chart. I was a Realtor for many years when I also worked as a broker. I added the cost of each on the bottom.

YOUR HOME IS AN INVESTMENT. KNOW ITS VALUE. BE AN INFORMED HOME BUYER.

The appraiser is the independent, impartial, and objective professional in the mortgage transaction. An appraiser develops an appraisal which is a credible, reliable, and supported opinion of value. An appraisal is typically used by the lender in a home purchase transaction; this assists in the lender’s decision to provide funds for a mortgage. While the lender is technically the owner of the appraisal, as a borrower you still have certain rights:

• You have the right to obtain your own appraisal, even if you are paying cash for a property.

• You have the right to know what type of valuation service is being ordered for your loan.

• You have a right to make an appraisal a contingency in your sales agreement.

A home purchase is typically the largest investment someone will make. Protect yourself by getting your investment appraised! The appraiser will observe the property, analyze the data, and report their findings to their client. The client may be the lender, borrower, or other third-party.

An appraisal ordered by a lender is for the benefit of the lender to ensure that the collateral they are using to securitize the loan is sufficient. An appraisal is not a home inspection. While all appraisals are valuation services, not all valuation services are appraisals.

Product	Appraisal Report	Hybrid or Bifurcated Appraisal	Desktop Appraisal	CMA or BPO	Evaluation	Automated Valuation Model AVM
Source	Appraiser	Appraiser and/or Non-Appraiser	Appraiser and/or Non-Appraiser	Broker or Sales Agent	Non-Appraiser	Computer Generation Algorithm
Definition	An opinion of value that is developed by a licensed appraiser in compliance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP). It is an unbiased, independent, objective, impartial, credible and reliable opinion of value.	A third-party performs the property inspection and provides the information to the licensed appraiser who uses this information, as well as other data, to complete the appraisal in compliance with USPAP.	A valuation performed without an interior or exterior inspection of the property by an appraiser or any 3rd party. All research is based on information from tax records, MLS data and other reliable sources.	Comparative Market Analysis, or CMA –Commonly prepared by a real estate agent to help their client determine a reasonable listing or purchase nprice for a property. CMAs do not comply with USPAP. Brokers Price Opinion,or BPO – Commonly prepared by a real estate broker to determine price (not value), BPOs are traditionally associated with short sales, foreclosures and/or relocations. BPOs do not comply with USPAP.	Evaluation – An opinion of value for use by a lender. An evaluation does not have to comply with USPAP and does not have to be completed by a licensed appraiser.	An AVM is a mathematical model which estimates real estate property value. AVMs were designed to speed up the valuation process and reduce costs. Using algorithms and previously collected information, a value estimate is computer generated. Results may not be credible if adequate and relevant data is unavailable. An AVM is an evaluation, which is not an appraisal. Both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac offer AVM- based valuations. Lenders may refer to this as an appraisal waiver. Borrowers have the right to reject the waiver and request an appraisal report.
Level of Inspection	INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR INSPECTION BYvAN APPRAISER	INSPECTION BY AN APPRAISER OR A THIRD PARTY	NO INSPECTION	MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE INSPECTION BY APPRAISER	NO INSPECTION	NO INSPECTION
Level of Valuation	Most Comprehensive	<-------			------->	Least Comprehensive

Costs

The first three cost money and the last three are free. A full interior/exterior inspection appraisal by a licensed, real estate appraiser is about $350-$550 but could be higher if it's a large, custom home. You receive a full report with measurements, photos and the valuation. Hybrids are supposed to be cheaper but they seem to cost the same and don't save time for anyone. A desktop appraisal runs about $300-$400 but could be higher if it's a large, custom home. Two to four units, apartment buildings, raw land, commercial, retail, warehouse, industrial property, business appraisals ... cost more. My price list is in my website http://marycummins.com/price.htm . I charge less than most. The average for Los Angeles, California for an average size home is $350-$500 per this survey as of September 2021. Lenders generally charge more as they have to pay the AMC who pays the appraiser. The AMC keeps part of the fee which is why it costs more.

CMA and BPO are okay if you know and trust the real estate agent and just need a range in order to list the property. I've run into a few who intentionally listed the property low to sell to a friend or double end the deal to get both the buyer and seller's commission. While there are a few scammers in every profession there are many reputable agents out there. Ask your friends.

AVMs are okay if you are only looking for a wide range, ballpark figure for curiosity sake. They admit they are not reliable for homes at the lower and higher ends of the price, size, condition and age ranges. They may be okay for a newer average sized tract home or condo in good condition.

Link to NAR brochure in pdf format.

https://cdn.nar.realtor/sites/default/files/documents/valuation-appraisal-for-homebuyers-12-2020.pdf

Mary Cummins of Cummins Real Estate is a certified residential licensed appraiser in Los Angeles, California. Mary Cummins is licensed by the California Bureau of Real Estate appraisers and has over 35 years of experience.

Mary Cummins, Mary K. Cummins, Mary Katherine Cummins, Mary, Cummins, #marycummins #animaladvocates #losangeles #california #wildlife #wildliferehabilitation #wildliferehabilitator #realestate #realestateappraiser #realestateappraisal #lawsuit real estate, appraiser, appraisal, instructor, teacher, Los Angeles, Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Pasadena, Brentwood, Bel Air, California, licensed, permitted, certified, single family, condo, condominium, pud, hud, fannie mae, freddie mac, fha, uspap, certified, residential, certified resident, apartment building, multi-family, commercial, industrial, expert witness, civil, criminal, orea, dre, brea insurance, bonded, experienced, bilingual, spanish, english, form, 1004, 2055, 1073, land, raw, acreage, vacant, insurance, cost, income approach, market analysis, comparative, theory, appraisal theory, cost approach, sales, matched pairs, plot, plat, map, diagram, photo, photographs, photography, rear, front, street, subject, comparable, sold, listed, active, pending, expired, cancelled, listing, mls, multiple listing service, claw, themls, historical appraisal, facebook, linkedin

Mary Cummins

Mary Cummins of Cummins Real Estate Services has been in real estate since 1983, over 35 years. She is licensed by the Bureau of Real Estate Appraisers. Mary Cummins was an agent and broker licensed with the California Department of Real Estate selling residential income, commercial buildings, raw land and homes for Merrill Lynch Realty in Beverly Hills and Westside Properties in Los Angeles before concentrating on appraisals. Mary Cummins currently provides real estate appraisals, expert witness testimony, historical research, legal real estate research for mortgage brokers, banks, lawyers, factors, insurance companies, financial consultants and private individuals. Mary Cummins was born and raised in Southern California. Cummins attended Beverly Hills Good Shepherd Catholic School and Beverly Hills High School. Besides being on the Dean's list, Mary Cummins was a top ten national swimmer and competed on the men's water polo team. Mary Cummins began college at the age of 15 attending the University of Southern California on scholarship, majoring in Psychology/Sociology. http://www.animaladvocates.us http://www.facebook.com/AnimalAdvocatesUSA

Sunday, October 3, 2021

Bruce's Beach, Willa & Charles Bruce beach property in Manhattan Beach, California being returned, Appraisal, value, by Mary Cummins

Bruce's Beach, Bruce Beach, Willa Bruce, Charles Bruce, park, racism, black, african american, mary cummins, real estate appraiser, real estate, los angeles, california, kkk, whites, racist

UPDATE: 01/03/2022 Bruces will sell property to Los Angeles County for $20,000,000. That's right in line with my historical estimate below. Janice Hahn said "“This is what reparations look like,” she added, “and it is a model that I hope governments across the country will follow.” The question now is will everyone get back property they previously sold via eminent domain? The Bruce's were paid way over market value for their land when they sold it to the government. They signed an agreement. Can everyone undo, redo those sales? If so, I need to start a new business. Imagine everyone who sold a lot worth $10 can now get $20,000,000! There were about 40 lots owned by many different people in that "improper" eminent domain transaction. They were black, Latino, white... Does it matter since it was deemed improper by Janice Hahn? Time to undo the Dodgers site, Chavez Ravine, freeway land, school land...

https://www.dailybreeze.com/2023/01/03/bruce-family-to-sell-recently-returned-land-to-l-a-county-for-20-million

06/23/2022 Janice Hahn stated the following,

“At long last, the descendants of Willa and Charles Bruce will be able to begin rebuilding the wealth that has been denied to generations of Bruce's since their property was seized nearly a century ago,” said Hahn."

Just to be factual the Bruce's were paid over market value for their land at that time. I did a historical valuation below based on similar land sales reported in latimes.com and other newspapers. Back then all sales were reported in the newspaper. They weren't "stripped of their land." The city bought it from them. They didn't lose their wealth or money. They made a lot of money on the sale. They could have bought other investments with that money and maybe they did.

The key issue is they didn't want to sell it. They hired a lawyer to fight eminent domain proceedings. They lost. All of the people in that specific block area, white and black, had their land taken and paid for legally by eminent domain. They were all paid over market value with the Bruces getting the most money. Many citizens complained about paying over market value for the park, see articles below.

Of course no one in eminent domain sales wants to sell their property. If they did, there wouldn't have been eminent domain proceedings. There have been many eminent domain proceedings in Los Angeles and California, some legal, some not so legal. Many times they've been paid over market value. I know because I've done eminent domain appraisals for people, cities and counties in this area. Will we now reopen all of those cases? Bet I could find the descendants of the other nearby lots taken by eminent domain. I could also find the owners of other eminent domain proceedings such as Dodger Stadium, all the freeways, schools, parks, animal shelters... Not all of those were 100% legal actions. Some were taken for one purpose then used for another like the South LA animal shelter. I was on the Prop F Committee when that happened.

And if we're really going to right some wrongs, we need to give all the land in the US back to the Native American Indians. We also need to give land back to Latinos, Asians ... who lost it through forced repatriation and other horrible acts by the government. Otherwise it's a bit discriminatory to pick and choose which person gets reparations for eminent domain transactions and which doesn't. Of course the government couldn't afford that so it's all moot.

https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/l-a-county-to-return-bruces-beach-property-to-heirs/2923656

Below is the county plan to return the property.

"County staff has negotiated a transfer agreement to return the Property to the

Bruces ("Transfer Agreement"), and a 24-month lease agreement, with an annual rent of

$413,000 plus responsibility for all operation and maintenance costs, to lease the

Property back to the County ("Lease Agreement"). The Lease Agreement includes the

Bruces' right to require the County to acquire the Property within a certain timeframe, and

the County's right to require the Bruces' to sell the Property to the County within a certain

timeframe, for a purchase price not to exceed $20 million. The annual rental amount is

supported by an economic analysis. The purchase price has been confirmed by

appraisals to be equivalent to or less than fair market value..."

There was a lawsuit case #21STCV38353

http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/supdocs/170222.pdf

Another doc.

http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/bc/1126216_BoardMemo-ReportBackonReturningBruce_sBeachtoitsRightfulOwners_6.21.22.pdf

I tried to find the actual appraisal but couldn't. I may request it in a state information act request. I agree with their value but I just want to see it.

UPDATE: As expected many people now want to revisit their sales, settlements, property transfers in eminent domain actions all over the US. Organizations such as "Where is my land?" have been started to accept and make claims to government for more money starting with California. If government were really serious, they should be giving the original owners of the land, Native Americans, their land back or cash value. There's already talk of revisiting the land sold via eminent domain for the many Los Angeles freeways such as the 101 and the 10. There is even talk of giving money to people who were merely tenants of that land and had no ownership interest whatsoever. Many politicians talking about this today are coincidentally currently running for office.

I knew this case would cause many new claims. How will each claim be evaluated? What documents and proof will be needed? How will the properties, damages be evaluated? I did research on Bruce Beach, Chavez Ravine, 101/10 freeway eminent domain cases property values. Some were paid under market value, some market value and some over market value for their land when it transferred. Will they just be given today's value of the land or the land, or the difference in values minus cost of money over time? How far back in time will they go? Back to the time of the Native Americans? This will be a complex issue.

ORIGINAL: In 1912 Willa Bruce bought her first of two lots in what is now Manhattan Beach. The lot was 33' x 100' located at what is now 2600 (2608) The Strand, Manhattan Beach, California. (Scroll down to see information about the property). She stated in 1912 that she paid $1,225 for the lot. Mrs. Bruce opened her beach stand selling food and renting bathing suits so people could enjoy themselves at the beach and swim in the ocean. At the time black people were not welcome at local beaches and did not own land there. Her beach stand became known as Bruce's Beach.

The park which is currently named Bruce's Beach is not where Bruce's Beach used to be located. Bruce's Beach was located on The Strand on the beach. The park is located a few blocks away from the beach. Based on what's I've seen so far the two lots are about 33' x 100' or about 6,666 sf. combined. The lots are directly where the Los Angeles Lifeguard station is located.

Below are some newspaper clippings in chronological ordered. I transcribed a few of them starting with one from 1912.

"COLORED PEOPLE'S RESORT MEETS WITH OPPOSITION. REDONDO BEACH. June 24. The establishment of a small summer resort for negroes at North Manhattan has created great agitation among the white property owners of adjoining land. The new summer resort which at present consists of a small portable cottage with a stand in front where soda pop and lunches are sold, and two dressing tents with shower baths and a supply of fifty bathing suits, was opened last Monday by the dusky proprietor and patronized by many colored people from Los Angeles. Yesterday when a good-sized Sun day crowd of pleasure seekers had gathered and donned their bathing suits to disport in the ocean, they were confronted by two deputy Constables who warned them against crossing the strip of land in front of Mrs. Bruce's property to reach the ocean. For a distance of over half a mile from Peck's pier to Twenty-fourth street, a strip of ocean frontage is owned by George H. Peck, who also owns several hundred acres of land in Manhattan in addition where Mrs Bruce's property is situated. This strip has been staked off and "no trespassing" signs put up and consequently the bathers yesterday could not get to the beach without walking beyond Peck's strip of ocean frontage. This small inconvenience, however, did not deter the bathers, on pleasure bent, from walking the half mile around Peck's land and spending the day swimming and jumping the breakers. All along the beach in front of the prohibitd strip which was patroled by the constables, the light hearted "cullud" people frolicked in the breakers or lay on the warm samd enjoying the sea breezes.

Mrs. Bruce, a stout negress whose home is at No. 1024 Santa Fe avenue says most emphatically that she is there to stay, and that she will continue to rent her bathing suits to people of her race. She owns a lot on Manhattan avenue 33xl00 feet for which she paid $1225, a high price compared to the cost of near by lots. She says she purchased the property from Henry Willard, a real state dealer of Los Angeles. The entire next block in the Manhattan addition between Twenty- sixth and Twenty-seventh streets has been leased to Milton T. Lewis, a colored real estate dealer, by Willard. Lewis proposes to rent space for tents on this block to negroes who desire to come to the beach.

The situation, as described by Mrs. Bruce, has a pathetic side, for she avers negroes cannot have bathing privileges at any of the bath-houses along the coast, and all they desire is a little resort of their own to which, they might go and enjoy the ocean. "Wherever we have tried to buy land for a beach resort we have been refused, but I own this land and I am going to keep it." She and her associates feel that it is unjust that they should not be allowed to "have a little breathing space" at the seaside where they might have a holiday. Her husband is a chef on a dining-car that runs between Salt Lake City and Los Angeles. Property-owners of the Caucasian, race who have property surrounding the new resort deplore the state of affairs, but will try to find a remedy, if the negroes try to stay." June 27, 1912 Part I, Los Angeles Times.

June 19, 1919 Juneteenth picnic at Bruce's Beach.

Bruce's Beach, Bruce Beach, Willa Bruce, Charles Bruce, park, racism, black, african american, mary cummins, real estate appraiser, real estate, los angeles, california, kkk, whites, racist

1924 the City of Manhattan Beach voted to condemn Bruce's Beach to build a park. Condemnation proceedings began against the Bruces. This article below states it was racism and hatred against the Bruces and black people. I transcribed the article below the image of the article. The land ended up being vacant for 30 years and no park was built until many years later. They should have won the lawsuit but lost because of judicial corruption against black people. Must have been depressing to be a lawyer representing black people back in the day. Even today it's depressing trying to stand up for your rights in places with judicial corruption like good ole boy Texas and the South.

December 26, 1924, California Eagle

Bruce's Beach, Bruce Beach, Willa Bruce, Charles Bruce, park, racism, black, african american, mary cummins, real estate appraiser, real estate, los angeles, california, kkk, whites, racist

"Bruce's Beach Fights Condemnation. Mr and Mrs Chas. A Bruce and their son, owners of Bruces Beach, are facing an action in the Superior Court filed by the City of Manhattan in which that city, seeks to condemn all the property owned by colored people at Manhattan Beach, under the pretext that it is to be named for a public park.

Bruces Beach. as it is commonly called is one of the best known resorts patronized by our people in the State of California, and many outings and parties have been held there during the past fourteen years the Bruces have maintained it.

The Bruces have won an enviable reputation by reason of the upright and Chi??? conduct, and even their enemies at Manhattan Beach who are fostering the papers to confiscate this property under the guise of 'condemnation' proceedings, admit that their conduct has been exemplary and the management of the place of the highest order.

Atty. Willis O. Tyler has been engaged to prosecute the defense of the Bruces and is preparing an answer to the Condemnation Proceedings in which he will set out the fact that racial prejudice is the real question to be tried and that there is no necessity for the condemnation of the Bruce' property for park purposes. In fact, says Atty. Tyler, there is much vacant-property on both the north and south side of the property which could have been obtained and the fact that the city seeks to restrict its proposed park to the property owned by colored people duly is palpable attempt to use the condemnation proceedings as a ruse to carry out the race prejudice which has taken this particular form of objection to members of our group having the right to enjoy bathing in the Pacific ocean."

Turns out the city condemned 30 lots total for the park, see the link below I just found. Five were owned by blacks and 25 were owned by whites. Some had shacks and some were vacant. Allegedly the amount of money paid for the land was more than market value at the time. This caused citizens to be upset that the city spent so much money over paying for the land for a park. The 1929 condemnation payments were for about $100 to $2,900 per lot. The Bruces received about $14,500 for the two lots of land in the condemnation process though their lots were improved. One person received $1,300 and another received $2,900 for one lot in the same block 5. These lots also faced the ocean and were right next to the Bruce's lot. Based on this settlement it appears the Bruces were paid over market for their land. It appears they were paid more than many of the white people. Still, they didn't want to sell and the city didn't build the park. It was an abuse of the condemnation process to run out the Bruces. I feel the white neighbors pressured the city to condemn the land for a park just to push the Bruces out of the area due to racism.

I found some land values from newspapers.com for PECK'S MANHATTAN BEACH TRACT. 1905 the land was offered for $350 to $800. At the same time someone else was offering them for $550 to $1,100. 1908 block 2 lot 11 sold for $10. 1907 lot 1 block 12 sold for $10. Based on what I'm seeing the Bruce's over paid for the property when they first bought it. I assume they were happy that someone would sell them the land as most wouldn't sell to black people at that time. Allegedly Peck sold two blocks to black people via a black real estate agent. The agent and Peck clearly ripped them off for profit. Peck also ripped off white people as it was a less desirable area. This area was farther from the pier and other development. That's why it was vacant for so long. That's probably why Peck allowed black people to buy it. Thank god things have improved though we are still far away from any real equality. The Bruce's paid $10 for their second lot in 1920 when they earlier paid $1,225 for their first identical directly adjacent lot.

I decided to do a historical evaluation of the land as of 1929 when the Bruce's were paid for the land. Lots were still asking $375 from George H. Peck. That's the same price he was asking in 1905. He didn't get it in 1905 and doubt he got asking in 1929. In 1926 the city of Manhattan Beach bought 36 lots on The Strand in a more desirable area north of the Bruce's lots for $75 a front foot from Peck. The Bruce's lots were 33' wide each so that would be $4,950. The Bruce's lots were in a much less desirable area farther from the pier and development. Even then the citizens of Manhattan Beach said the city paid too much for Peck's land. It appears Peck had a good "relationship" with the city for them to pay such a premium for his lots over others. 1929 ocean view lots on the sand in Manhattan Beach for $595 asking max.

I stumbled upon other news items concerning the Manhattan Beach parks in 1929. The city was going to turn those sites into parks. They stated they couldn't afford to maintain the parks so they asked Los Angeles County to lease and maintain them as a county park. California had just offered $3,000,000 funding for cities, counties to buy land for parks from private parties. The county agreed to take over George H Peck's 1/2 long strip of The Strand June 1929. I think this may have been the strip of land Bruce's patrons were not allowed to cross over so they had to walk 1/2 mile up and around that strip to get to the ocean. That may be a different strip but it's the same sand strip in front of The Strand boardwalk which we now call "The Strand." Based on everything I've seen the Bruces were paid over market value for their land in 1929. Still, they didn't want to sell.

This land used to be somewhat worthless as it was sand dunes. It was kind of like swamp land back in the day. The land speculators made a ton of money selling the land. Of course Peck liked selling them the land as he made out like a bandit. He over charged many people. Manhattan Beach eventually ended up hauling away the sand dunes and selling the sand to be used in construction elsewhere years later. There is only one sand dune left in Manhattan today.

Willie "Willa" Bruce died September 5, 1934 in Los Angeles, California. "BEACH OWNER PASSES Mrs. Willie Ann Bruce, proprietor of Bruces beach, passed away after a long illness - September 5 Funeral services were held from the First AME church, Eighth and Towne, with Rev. J. B. Isaacs officiating. She is survived by a son, daughter and grandson, all of Los Angeles."

Based on records she had five children but only one survived, her son Harvey Anthony Bruce who died in 1954. Harvey had two sons, Harvey and Bernard who are both dead. I assume they have children.

Governor Gavin Newson signed Senate Bill SB 796 in 2021 allowing the State of California to allow Los Angeles County to give the land to the Bruce family.

Information about the land and value

Based on everything I've read the two lots are 33' x 100' each. They are located at 2600 The Strand, Manhattan Beach, California 90266, see map below. The original address was 2608 The Strand, Redondo Beach, CA. The Los Angeles County Lifeguard Training Facility is located directly on top of the land. The County offered to give them the exact two lots or two lots in the parking lot directly next to them. The County also offered to continue to use the land and just pay them rent.

Below are the parcels circled in red and a satellite image of the same. ~~I don't know exactly which two parcels they are so I'll assume they are interior lots and not a corner.~~ Update, first lot was lot 8 of block 5. They bought lot 9 for $10 in 1920. Both interior lots. The legal description of the entire site today which includes six lots is PECK'S MANHATTAN BEACH TRACT LOTS 5,6,7,8,9 AND LOT 10. The Los Angeles County Tax Assessor number is 4177-024-901.

Below is a satellite image of the site. It's at the red tiled Lifeguard Training Center building. The Center and its parking lot are six lots. Two of the lots are the lots in question.

There is more land located on the other side of The Strand which meets the sand. This is the strip of land which used to be owned by George Peck. That land is now owned by the county and Federal government. I think they may have taken it by condemnation. It makes you wonder if the county would have taken Bruce's land by condemnation for the Lifeguard Center years later if Manhattan hadn't taken the land for a park. Of course the Lifeguard Center only took the land because it was a vacant park.

I've appraised a lot of property in this area on The Strand. I don't think the two lots are worth $75,000,000. I pity whoever does the appraisal because if they don't come in around $75,000,000, they'll probably be called a racist, get negative reviews on their business, death threats and maybe even some complaints against their license. I know that sites right next to those lots are single family homes and duplexes. The lot would have ended up single family zoned if it wasn't condemned for a park. The Bruces were living at the property. It was sold as lots for homes. I pulled all properties located on The Strand right next to the site sold within the last two years. Obviously there are no land sales. If we look at the cheapest home, duplex sales on The Strand with similar sized lots we can get the land value.

2316 The Strand 5,715 sf lot with 5,500 sf 6 bed, 7 bath home sold 09/2021 for $16.5M newer home.

2508 The Strand 4,556 sf lot with 5,328 sf 4 bed, 5 bath home sold 09/2021 for $12.2M newer home.

2804 The Strand 3,481 sf lot with 3,469 sf 4 bed, 4 bath home listed for $16.4M didn't sell older home.

2722 The Strand 6,927 sf lot with 6,000 sf 8 bed, 9 bath duplex sold for $17.7M 11/2020 built 1951 sold for land value as a double lot.

2508 The Strand

Just for a high ballpark figure we can use 2508 The Strand one block away. This has a newer luxury quality amazing house on it and it just sold. If it were only land, it would have sold for $2,677/ft. Obviously the land is worth less than that because it has an amazing house on it. 6,666 sf Bruce Beach site x $2,677 is $17.8M. This would be the maximum, maximum the site would be worth today if it were sold on the open market.

Fortunately 2722 The Strand sold 11/2020 for $17.7M as a double lot development for land value. It's two blocks away. This is slightly larger than the Bruce site. Based on all I've seen the current market value for the site is somewhere about around $17.7M. This is not an appraisal as I have not inspected the site and don't know all the limitations and issues with the site. It might not be possible to build anything on the property today because of the California Coastal Commission, it's in a tsunami zone and low laying area. There could also be an issue because there's a lifeguard tower in front of the site. There is also the other piece of county land that is between the property and the beach/ocean. This is not waterfront property. If that's the case, they should just rent the site to the County Lifeguard Center as is. If they try to develop it or sell it for development, I see a lot of litigation, costs and hassles by neighbors and government agencies.

It'll be interesting to see if this opens up the flood gates for more people wanting back the land they sold, gave away, had condemned, stolen by the government years ago. I could really see Native American Indians asking for their land back. Their land was stolen outright except for a few who sold though not on fair terms. Some original Mexican owners who owned the land after Native American Indians would also be entitled to some land as well. They had their land stolen or swindled from them. I could see others just wanting to renegotiate or take advantage of the huge increase in real estate values.

UPDATE: A recent article stated the Los Angeles County Tax Assessor will be reappraising the property with "no zoning restrictions as is." I assume this will be for tax purposes of the assessor is appraising it. If they charge transfer tax or capital gains, there will be a huge tax. They'd have to sell or lease it back instantly. No zoning restrictions means it could be used as commercial, retail, hotel ... anything. I appraised it as it's most likely zoning which is residential. It would be worth more with no zoning restrictions. As they are only two small interior lots bounded by the Life Guard building and parking lot there is no way they would really build anything like a hotel or restaurant. With the Coastal Commission, single family neighbors, NIMBYs and others I doubt they could build anything other than residential. At that point I think the Life Guard would have to move the center entirely.

Just found this great history of the Bruce's and their land after I wrote the article.

https://www.manhattanbeach.gov/home/showpublisheddocument?id=46093

Nice Powerpoint presentation

https://www.manhattanbeach.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/44319/637333659463800000

Here is a thesis someone wrote about Bruce's Beach from 1956.

https://scholarworks.calstate.edu/downloads/xk81jm67x

Los Angeles County report on how the land would be returned. They suggest maybe swapping some land in the park for the two lots. Many suggestions.

http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/bc/1109402_BoardMemo-ReturningBruce_sBeachtoitsRightfulOwners-6-30-21.pdf

Here's a map of tract 8867 which shows people used to own the lots basically on the sand west of The Strand. All that land now belongs to the government as the high tide lines have changed.

https://pw.lacounty.gov/sur/nas/landrecords/tract/MB0115/TR0115-082.pdf

Another old plat map before the area was further subdivided

https://pw.lacounty.gov/sur/nas/landrecords/tract/MB0028/TR0028-041.pdf

Mary Cummins

Wednesday, September 29, 2021

Los Angeles County Assessor Office offers real estate appraisal, job training and jobs by Mary Cummins

A New Jobs Partnership

The Los Angeles County Assessor’s Office has conceived an innovative jobs training program with two local community colleges that has constructed a direct pipeline to good-paying County jobs.

Furthermore, the Assessor’s Office has entered into these partnerships with the local community colleges because it produces an actual pathway to employment designed to bolster the workforce not only in the Assessor’s Office but in other County departments as well.

They are the Real Estate Appraiser III Certificate Program at West Los Angeles College and the Appraiser Assistant Training Program at Rio Hondo College.

Both of these new programs fall under the category of “first-of-its-kind,” as articulated by the Los Angeles Community College District; and most importantly, they fill the need of replacing those 30 or so valuable appraisers that leave the Department each year through retirements, job relocation, among other attrition factors. Our September Newsletter spotlights these remarkable programs.

A Project in the Making

When Assessor Prang was first elected in 2014, he immediately identified the challenge of attracting and retaining qualified job candidates to the Department. Having spent decades in the public sector as a city councilmember, mayor, assistant city manager, and even special assistant in the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, he was well- aware of recruitment challenges. It was one of the most daunting tasks he faced.

In a good year, the Assessor’s Office could typically train in-house about 30 new appraisers, and that’s when a new class could be launched. There were even some years when new classes were not possible and vacancies went unfilled. The Office needed help.

Assessor Prang began to contact outside agencies to see if there were alternatives. The Los Angeles Community College District as well as Rio Hondo College were willing to help. Also, he solicited support from the Board of Supervisors because he believed that the entire County could benefit from a new pathway for providing training for specialized positions in general, not just for the Assessor’s Office. The Board was more than willing to help.

Then the COVID-19 pandemic hit like a thunderbolt and crippled an already struggling economy. Everything changed and the need for qualified candidates increased exponentially.

In August of 2020, Supervisor for the First District Hilda L. Solis, who leads the Boards efforts on its workforce development initiatives, put forth a motion asking “the Department of Workforce Development, Aging and Community Services (WDACS), in collaboration with the Assessor, … to develop … a comprehensive review of training programs and curriculums currently offered” at the local colleges.

It was done and after much discussion and collaboration, the following was the result.

THE PROGRAMS

1. Real Estate Appraiser III Certificate of Achievement Program

The training for this current class of 51 Appraiser Trainees at West LA College is comprised of students hired this past spring. The goal is to shift much of the Assessor’s in-house classroom training for basic appraisal principles to the college classroom.

Assessor appraisers from the newest Real Property Class 78 are taking two of their courses at West LA College. The courses are part of their Appraiser Training Certification Program (ATCP) which is typically run entirely in-house. This year three courses are taught in-house, then they go to WLAC for the last two courses. All other training (on-the-job training) is done in-house.

This program will achieve a number of important objectives:
1.  It will allow the Department to maintain a consistent pipeline of qualified and trained candidates for employment in the Office of the Assessor.
2.  It will make good-paying County jobs available to the community.
3.  It will relieve the Office of the internal stresses that occur when providing in-house training for employees, which detracts from the Assessor’s primary mission of producing a complete and thorough Assessment Roll.

In summary, the Assessor’s Office needs to hire about 30 +/- Real Property and Business Property Appraisers annually just to keep up with attrition and this innovative program will better ensure that the Office can maintain an optimal level of personnel to do the important work in producing the annual Assessment Roll. The Los Angeles County Office of the Assessor is the largest in the nation with a total complement of appraisers that exceeds 700; thus the appraiser position can offer an unlimited career advancement opportunity, even in other County departments, and not just the Assessor’s Office.

2. Appraiser Assistant Training Program
College students with a minimum of 60 college credits may apply to the Appraiser Assistant Training Program at Rio Hondo College. The training program is comprised of four tuition-free, noncredit courses. The noncredit courses in the program are Real Estate Principles, Real Estate Appraisal, California Property Taxation & Assessment, and Career Preparation: 21st Century Skills.

Upon successful completion of the program, students will receive a noncredit certificate in California Property Taxation and Appraisal, and an opportunity to apply for employment at the Assessor as an Appraiser Assistant. The Appraiser Assistant Training Program is expected to be offered on an annual basis at Rio Hondo College to mitigate attrition, promotions, and retirements, and also intended to be duplicated at other community colleges should the need for Appraiser Assistants increase. The training program reduces the time required to train Appraiser Assistants by creating a pool of qualified candidates that have been trained on job-essential assessment topics prior to applying for employment.

After two years’ experience, Appraiser Assistants may apply to participate in the Assessor’s one-year Appraiser Trainee Certification Program (ATCP) and, upon successful completion, become state-certified property appraisers. They are then eligible for positions within the Appraisal series. Conversely, Appraiser Assistants who meet eligibility requirements may also subsequently seek promotion to positions within the Assessment series.

It’s estimated that as many as 50 students have already enrolled at Rio Hondo for the Appraiser Assistant - and successful graduates will qualify to immediately fill 16 positions in the Assessor’s Office. Eventually, they will learn the skills to become candidates for Appraiser positions, and potentially enjoy a career with the Office of the Assessor with many opportunities for upward mobility. The Office is also exploring adding other positions to this program that require extended specialized training.

Mary Cummins

Tuesday, September 28, 2021

California Assembly Bill AB 948 signed by Governor inre Real Estate Appraisal, Bureau of Real Estate Appraisers, by Mary Cummins

California Bill AB 948 Bureau of Real Estate Appraisers, Real Estate Appraisal , Mary Cummins, Los Angeles, Governor Gavin Newsom, signed, license, continuing education, bias, complaints, race, discrimination

Governor Gavin Newsom just signed California Assembly Bill AB 948. AB 948 modifies and adds regulations for appraising, buying, selling, making loans on real estate in California. The new regulations have to do with any alleged bias from anyone. This includes lenders, mortgage brokers, real estate agents and real estate appraisers.

It's already illegal to discriminate in real estate and housing per the Fair Housing Act of 1968. This new bill basically just restates that. It also adds new educational requirements in regard to bias. They aren't additional educational hours. They are just specific hours for new applicants and renewals.

The bill amends "Sections 11340 and 11360 of, and to add Sections 11310.3 and 11424 to, the Business and Professions Code, to add Section 1102.6g to the Civil Code, and to amend Section 12955 of the Government Code, relating to real estate."

From the Bill, "LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST AB 948, Holden. Bureau of Real Estate Appraisers: disclosures: demographic information: reporting: continuing education.

Existing law, the Real Estate Appraisers’ Licensing and Certification Law, creates a Bureau of Real Estate Appraisers within the Department of Consumer Affairs to administer and enforce that law. Existing law requires the protection of the public to be the highest priority for the bureau in exercising its licensing, regulatory, and disciplinary functions.

This bill, among other things, would require the bureau to place on an existing complaint form a check box asking if the complainant believes that the opinion of the value of the real estate is below market value. The bill would also require the bureau to collect specified demographic information, voluntarily provided, regarding sellers, those seeking to refinance, buyers, or an authorized representative in real estate transactions making a complaint. The bill would require the bureau to compile the collected demographic information and report that information to the Legislature on or before July 1, 2024.

This bill would prohibit a licensee from basing their appraisal of the market value of a property on the basis of race, color, religion, gender, gender expression, age, national origin, disability, marital status, source of income, sexual orientation, familial status, employment status, or military status of either the present or prospective owners or occupants of the subject property, or of the present owners or occupants of the properties in the vicinity of the subject property, or on any other basis prohibited by the federal Fair Housing Act.

Existing law requires the Chief of the Bureau of Real Estate Appraisers to adopt regulations governing the process and procedures for applying for a license, including education and experience equivalency, and for renewal of a license, including, but not limited to, continuing education requirements on a 4-year cycle.

This bill would require, beginning January 1, 2023, an applicant to complete at least one hour of instruction in cultural competency, as defined. The bill, as part of the continuing education requirement in order to renew a license or restore a license to active status, would require for each licensee renewing on or after January 1, 2023, at least 2 hours of elimination of bias training. Beginning January 1, 2023, a licensee would be required to complete at least one hour of instruction in cultural competency every 4 years.

Existing law requires that specified disclosures be made upon transfer by sale, exchange, real property sales contract, lease with an option to purchase, any other option to purchase, or ground lease coupled with improvements, of any single-family residential property.

This bill, after July 1, 2022, would require that every contract for the sale of single-family residential real property contain a notice stating that any appraisal of the property is required to be unbiased, objective, and not influenced by improper or illegal considerations. The bill would require the notice to include information regarding reporting biased appraisals to the financial institution or mortgage broker that hired the appraiser or the Bureau of Real Estate Appraisers. The bill would also require the notice to be delivered by a licensed person, as defined, refinancing a first lien purchase money loan secured by residential real property containing no more than 4 dwelling units either prior to, or with, the loan estimate or the mortgage loan disclosure statement.

Existing law, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, prohibits housing discrimination, including discrimination through public or private land use practices, decisions, or authorizations, and based on specified personal characteristics. Existing law makes it unlawful for any person or other organization or entity whose business involves real estate-related transactions to discriminate against any person in making available a transaction, or in the terms and conditions of a transaction, because of specified personal characteristics.

This bill would make it unlawful for any person or other entity whose business includes performing appraisals of residential real property to discriminate against any person in making available those services, or in the performance of those services, because of race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, familial status, source of income, disability, genetic information, veteran or military status, or national origin."

Link to actual bill below.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB948

This bill appears to be a political response to a couple of California media articles about alleged bias in real estate appraising. One article was about Cora Robinson who filed a complaint. Based on my research the first appraisal was within the range of market value. I did a FOIA request to get a copy of the investigation results and will post them here when they are available. Another article was about Saleem Shaheed. This was another case where the first appraisal was within the range of market value. Shaheed did not file a complaint.

September 21, 2021 Marcia Fudge the head of HUD stated that there were few complaints for racial bias in appraising. I looked at the HUD stats and agree. A lot of the outrage in the media is from a handful, about five actually, alleged cases of alleged low appraisals caused by alleged racial bias. I researched the five cases and wrote articles in this blog about them. The first appraisals were within the range of market value. They were not low. The markets were quickly appreciating. The second appraisals came in over market value because the second appraiser used comps outside of the area which were not true comparables. I will be posting the results of the FOIA requests of the two complaints filed here.

A lot of these recent claims of alleged racial bias stem from the change in political climate related to George Floyd. "The country is in a time of racial reckoning, heightened by a summer of protests against systemic racism and police brutality following the death of George Floyd in police custody." Floyd's death "sparked the largest racial justice protests in the United States since the Civil Rights Movement." "According to data from various sources, the Black Lives Matter movement is now the largest movement in US history." While racism exists and must be banished from our nation the pendulum has now swung to the extreme side. In this new light anything and everything is automatically "racist" today before even looking at the facts.

It light of everything that is currently happening I believe real estate professionals need to educate their clients and the public about the real estate appraisal, lending and selling processes. Generally the person reading the appraisal report is not the client. The client is the AMC and the lender. The report is made for real estate professionals and not lay people. I think it's a good idea for appraisers to add language for lay people who will probably end up reading the report. Some of the complaints about reports that I've read clearly show that the reader doesn't understand market value or the underwriting process. I believe this has caused some to assume that any value they don't like must be "racism" when it's not.

Mary Cummins

Mary Cummins, Real Estate Appraiser, Animal Advocates, Los Angeles, California

Tuesday, October 5, 2021

Different types of home valuations - appraisal by a licensed appraiser, CMA, BPO, AVM by NAR, Mary Cummins

Sunday, October 3, 2021

Bruce's Beach, Willa & Charles Bruce beach property in Manhattan Beach, California being returned, Appraisal, value, by Mary Cummins

Wednesday, September 29, 2021

Los Angeles County Assessor Office offers real estate appraisal, job training and jobs by Mary Cummins

Tuesday, September 28, 2021

California Assembly Bill AB 948 signed by Governor inre Real Estate Appraisal, Bureau of Real Estate Appraisers, by Mary Cummins