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.

Wednesday, October 2, 2024

Chicago Urban League, Chicago Association of Realtors, Preparing for An Appraisal, Comments by Mary Cummins, Real Estate Appraiser

I attended Chicago Urban League, Chicago Association of Realtors Zoom webinar today on Preparing for an Appraisal. Good questions and answers. Below is the summary. My notes, comments below that. I'll post link to video if, when they release it.

"Preparing for An Appraisal.On October 2nd from 7:00-9:00 PM, join the Chicago Urban League's House and Wealth Committee for part one of a three-part virtual series. During the event, you will gain valuable insights into the appraisal process and learn how to advocate for fair valuations.

Learn from top experts in the real estate field on how to prepare for an appraisal and advocate for your property’s value. Whether you’re a Realtor, Realist, or a homeowner, this virtual event is packed with valuable insights.

Moderated by the Chicago Association of Realtors President Elect and Chair of the Chicago Urban League’s Housing and Wealth Committee, Lutalo McGee, our esteemed panelists include,

President Sanina Jones of the Dearborn Realtist Board (DRB),

President Erika Villegas of the Chicago Association of Realtors (CAR) and

Tiffany Jimenez of the National Association of Hispanic Real Estate Professionals (NAHREP) Chicago

Tom Schurer of Real Valuation Services

This 3 part series represents a joint effort of the CUL, CAR, DRB, NAHREP, NHS, RAINBOW PUSH AND NAACP- South Side to empower real estate professionals and consumers about the appraisal process and how best to advocate for home buyers and sellers to ensure they receive a fair valuation based on industry best practices."

Mary Cummins notes and comments on the meeting.

Question: Can I advocate for my value, for what I think it's worth?

Answer: Panelists said yes. Some said you can offer comps, contract. Appraiser said "Nobody knows a home better than the homeowner. It's a matter of pride."

Question: Why do consumers think they can't talk to the appraiser?

The panelists said you can and should talk to the appraiser about your value and what you think it's worth.

I sent in this comment: "Borrower can give comps, contract, list of improvements ....but can't try to influence the value. "1090.5. (a) No person with an interest in a real estate transaction involving an appraisal shall improperly influence or attempt to improperly influence, through coercion, extortion, or bribery, the development, reporting, result, or review of a real estate appraisal sought in connection with a mortgage loan."

My comment: It's a crime and you will be denied your loan if the appraiser feels you tried to influence their value. Don't say "I need $xxx,000 to get the loan," "the house is easily worth $xxx,000." Feel free to give list of similar homes of the same size, condition which have recently sold in the same area. Don't state a dollar value for fear appraiser may think you are trying to influence.

Question: Can I ask appraiser if they know the area, are competent?

Answer: Yes, but be nice and polite.

Question: Should I communicate with the appraiser in writing or on the phone?

Answer: Put things in writing so it will be included in the work file. Send it to them before the inspection. (My comment. Be polite and factual. Don't try to influence the dollar value).

Roberto Interiano, Lender, then read my comment and others agreed.

Question: Can I order my own appraisal if it doesn't have to do with a loan?

Yes, if you just want to know the value. The bank has to order their own appraiser for their appraisal for a loan.

Question: What should I have ready for the appraisal?

If you are selling, make sure your house is in show ready condition. Have any documents ready for inspection such as the survey, list of improvements.

Question: Should I remove photos from my home?

Answer: Erika Villegas: Yes, remove religious and political items. Remove personal photos because the listing photos could end up on the internet. Remove photos of people because there have been media articles which show some didn't get the "proper value" because of photos of some people.

My comment: All real estate agents tell all sellers to remove personal items, clutter and make sure home is clean and presentable. This is especially important for listing photos, showings. There are a lot of media articles out there about people white/black washing their homes to remove any trace that the owner may be black, Latino... Some articles say the value went up because of, after white/black washing. That is probably not the cause of the value change. It's a false narrative caused by the media, politicians and others.

Lutalo McGee: What about removing personal photos?

Sanina Ellisa Jones: An appraisal is subjective. It's problematic and why appraisals come in lower in our (POC) economy, community. It's because of racism, redlining, discrimination from early 1900's. The maps said risk is equal to blacks. African Americans were marked red, hazardous. It's no longer legal but still subjectivity exists from that practice. Take down religious, political items. I shouldn't have to remove my face because the value could be lower. Homes are devalued based on who lives there. We shouldn't have to do it but we should do it for the value. Values shouldn't be based on photos.

My comment: Appraisers value the home and not the occupants. Home appraisal is a math formula. AVMs use the same formula but appraisers have all the data needed to ascertain value. We generally don't even know race, color of owner, borrower or of the comp homes that sold, are listed. It's a false narrative. That said I agree that you should remove personal items, photos, religious, political items for the listing photos, showings. Buyers want to imagine themselves in the home and not you. They want a blank slate. Homes look bigger without clutter. There are many articles about this online. Appraisers blur all photos that include people, religious items, political items, things such as gun collections, "personal" items... Even if you don't remove your photos, items, we will blur them.

Her definition of redlining is also incorrect. 70% property in HOLC map area D or red were owned by white people. While blacks, Latinos ... lived there whites owned most of the property. Whites were the main ones who had to pay higher interest rates to get the loans. Race wasn't included in all maps. Race was one of many, many factors included in the maps. We use all those same factors today except race. The factors i.e. property age, condition, value, predicted depreciation, income of residents, location near hazardous sites, freeways...are still used today. If you removed race from those maps, they were still just as accurate for risk. Race had NOTHING TO DO with the value or risk. 1935 HOLC program brought lots of money to those areas. Before this there were no loans or they were small and super expensive. Most areas in D zones are now totally refurbished and many are affluent areas. The HOLC program money actually helped. There is a lot of research which proves this but everyone likes to repeat the false stories. I remember when I first heard about redlining around 1983. I also believed that false shit until I did some research and educated myself. Here's an article I wrote about redlining citing the research.
https://mary--cummins.blogspot.com/2021/05/redlining-in-home-loan-financing-mary.html

Lutalo: Should people put an appraisal pkg together?

Sanina: The listing agent advocates for the home value. Have a CMA, floor plan, survey, size, neighborhood details, upgrades, remodel, energy features to show appraiser how listing agent determined the list price.

My comment: The listing agent should already have a property package. Appraisers are open to receiving data. A list of similar sold, listed comparables is good. List of improvements, floor plan if available, survey, energy features... A list of maintenance items is fine but appraisers assume properties are maintained. Maintaining your property doesn't give you extra value.

Appraiser Tom Schurer: Tell the appraiser if there are multiple offers. Let the appraiser know what's happening in the community, developments.

Lutalo McGee: What about new rehabs in area where there aren't any new rehabs sold.

Schurer: You make time adjustments on closed sales, use pending sales.

Lutalo: What do appraisers look at when determining value? What should homeowners do to their homes to prepare?

Schurer: Paint it. It gives a good clean feel. Kitchen, baths drive home values, school district, neighborhood. Nice curb appeal.

My comment: If your home desperately needs a paint job, do it. Just don't expect 100% return on investment. Appraisers look mainly at location, size, bed/bath count, kitchen/bath condition in that order. Don't add a new kitchen/bath for an appraisal. You won't get 100% return on investment in terms of value. It's good to do it anyway if most homes have renovated kitchens, baths and you can enjoy it while you live there.

Question: What if appraiser asks for Tidewater?

Answer: Schurer: It means the appraiser needs help. They can't get value needed. They ask agent for help. Reconsideration Of Value ROV process. The new program looks good. Should be done by end of October and we can talk about it.

My comment: Tidewater: If the VA appraiser believes that the actual home value will be lower than the listing price, they will invoke tidewater. This is simply a heads up that gives the listing agent 48 hours to support the listing price. The agent will then provide similar sold comparables which support the list or contract price. I've found most of the time someone enlists Tidewater, contract/list price was over market value.

Question: How do we navigate AI.

Answer: Schurer: AI will change our world and real estate. RE is a people business. We laughed at early AVM like Zillow. It's real good these days. My future will be reconciling data sets, not giving opinion of value. I will just say why a dataset is wrong for the value of a home (how would he know if he didn't appraise it?) We will still need our smart human brains. Play along. Don't be afraid.

My comment: AI, AVMs are only as good as the data they have. GIGO, Garbage In Garbage Out. AVMs only work with newer, median size, median priced homes in average to good C3 condition. They don't work on older custom homes in fair/vastly improved condition with no view/views on irregular lots... We will still need appraisers for those types of homes.

CEO Urban League Karen Freeman Wilson: We need to know historical context, how the past affects the present. We need to know how to eliminate barriers to home ownership.

My comment: Totally agree.

The next webinar in the series will be with appraiser Chris Posey. Posey will teach us how to read an appraisal report and spot red flags. My coment: Chris Posey is very experienced and knowledgeable. He'll be giving great advice.

Saturday, September 28, 2024

Racist Los Angeles Planning Report - "Historical Housing and Land Use Study" written by Architectural Resources Group, comments by Mary Cummins Real Estate Appraiser

mary cummins, real estate appraiser, real estate appraisal, los angeles, california, planning, zoning, architectural resources group, katie horak, elysha paluszek, morgan quirk, racist, racism, historical housing land use study

I just started reading the land use report "City of Los Angeles Historical Housing and Land Use Study" written by Architectural Resources Group, Inc., Katie E. Horak, Elysha Paluszek and Morgan Quirk which was paid for by the Los Angeles City Planning. This "report" is not only racist but it makes clear the authors don't understand real estate and basic economics. Yes, racism exists. Yes, the world, US and LA have a racist past and still deal with racism today. That doesn't mean income and wealth disparities today in LA are caused by and can be fixed by the current actions of Los Angeles City Planning and Zoning Dept. I now see why the city was reluctant to share this ridiculous report linked below. I also see why it took so long for ARG which is controlled by a 100% white leadership corporation to finish and release the report. Even they knew the report written by lower level writers was too extreme. They should have stuck to the facts instead of adding the slanted racist commentary.

https://planning.lacity.gov/odocument/3eaaa5ce-d96c-4325-a1b8-557218bbd0f5/Historic_Housing_and_Land_Use_Study.pdf

This was the alleged goal of the report. "Architectural Resources Group (ARG) was retained by the City of Los Angeles to prepare this Study as part of the update to the 2021-2029 Housing Element of the General Plan (The Plan to House LA)." "The Study aims to provide an understanding of the twentieth century policies that have contributed to Los Angeles’ housing shortage and affordability crisis, as well as those which have contributed to unequal access to housing and economic opportunity. In providing a context for the current housing landscape, the Study will help inform future efforts by the City as it seeks to provide housing for Los Angeles’ diverse and varied population."

It looks like ARG made this report starting around 2022 after George Floyd's 2020 murder during the height of the more extreme BLM, DEI actions. I support BLM, DEI but the initial reaction after Floyd's murder was an extreme pendulum swing. It corrected and now there's a backlash in the opposite direction which is also wrong but expected. This misguided "report" blames current racial income and wealth inequality on the current allegedly "racist" Los Angeles City Planning and Zoning Department. Let me provide some much needed facts.

Whites make more money than blacks, Latinos. People who make more money have more money. People who have more money can afford to buy and own more expensive homes, apartments in more expensive areas. They also have more expensive cars. This is the reason why whites tend to live in more expensive areas and their homes are worth more. It's the income gap, stupid! Low income whites live in the same area as low income blacks, Latinos. AEI research has proven time and time again that the correlation is socioeconomic factors and not race. It's money. No Planning Department can fix the income gap. It's not their jurisdiction. No one today is preventing blacks, Latinos from living in more expensive areas of LA. Economics is preventing them from being able to afford to live in those areas. Fix the income gap!

This report blames LA City Planning and Zoning department for blacks, Latinos not being able to own and live in more expensive homes in more expensive areas today. "This analysis shows that past planning and housing policies have too often prioritized the concerns of the White middle class over the marginalized, denying communities of color access to resources and excluding them from wealth-building opportunities. Exclusionary policies of the past persist today, perpetuating patterns of segregation, displacement, inequity, and exclusion." Today the cause is income inequality which isn't caused by the Planning Dept. Anyone can now buy any house, rent any apartmentn they can afford. This would be like blaming the Department of Motor Vehicles DMV because whites own more expensive cars than blacks, Latinos. The report writers would call the DMV racist.

Reading through this report I see that it's riddled with illogical reasoning. The report says that people who live in nice homes in nice areas are more successful than those who don't and it's not fair to POC. They think if low income POC could just live in those areas, they'd automatically be successful. Wrong. You have to be successful in order to make enough money to afford to live in those areas! It says this is the fault of the Planning Dept. It's economics! It affects all lower income people equally, white, black, green. You need to complain to the labor dept not Planning. This is not a peer reviewed report. It is not published research. It would never be published with all these statistical mistakes and misinterpretations.

The real reason for the Housing Crisis today is lack of a sufficient number of housing units in Los Angeles and most US cities. Another reason is of course all incomes lagging behind home values. Lack of supply drives up demand and prices. The price of homes is up 46% in last five years alone for this reason. The problem is more people living in an area which is predominantly zoned single family. It's also caused by more expensive California building requirements, increased construction costs, more development red tape, higher interest rates and NIMBYs (Not In My Back Yard). Higher housing costs also increases land costs which increases building costs.

I know that if the city of Los Angeles would allow light touch density, i.e. allow 1-4 units in SFR zones, the housing issue would be much closer to being solved. There would be more housing units which would cost less. As it is you have two to four families living in SFRs, duplexes in lower income areas illegally against zoning, Building & Safety laws. They cut up the buildings, convert garages, add additions without permits. NIMBYs are the reason we don't have light touch density. If you want to blame someone for blacks, Latinos, lower income people of all races, colors not being able to afford housing, blame NIMBYs and the income gap. It'd make more sense than blaming the LA Planning and Zoning Department. The report of course says the only goal of Zoning Dept was, is to help only white people and segregate black people into poor areas. This is false. There was never a black, Latino...zone. There were some private CC&Rs which restricted where blacks and some others could live in certain neighborhoods pre 1945. Those were made by the property owners and not the Planning Dept. In 1945 in LA the Adams Heights, Sugar Hill case outlawed those restrictions. The 1963 California Rumford Act also outlawed any restrictions. The Federal Fair Housing Act of 1968 made it national. People today live in different areas based on finances alone.

I read the intro, beginning, findings, conclusion and will read the rest later. I'm sure these people misconstrued redlining and other issues. Check back for the full report after I read it all. This report was a waste of city funds. It will just incite racism, hatred and division. AI, Google will now pick it up and repeat this bullshit as fact further stoking racism and hatred. No one should ever hire this group if they can't make sure their lower level employees can complete an assignment in a fair, unbiased, unracist manner.

Just looked at the "definition" of "redlining" in the report. "Redlining: a discriminatory practice that puts services (financial services, i.e. loans, or otherwise) out of reach for residents of certain areas based on race or ethnicity. The term “redlining” originated in the 1930s, when a government-sponsored corporation (the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation, or HOLC) assessed and categorized neighborhoods occupied by ethnic groups and people of color as “declining” or “hazardous” and therefore viewed them as investment risks; the policy discouraged investment in these neighborhoods, the legacy of which is felt to this day."

This is incorrect besides totally racist. This is what "redling" actually was. HOLC made maps of a few cities in the US in 1935 to determine loan risk so the government could loan the property owners money to improve the areas. They made maps for 239 cities out of 108,000 cities or .2%. Most of those maps never mentioned race. They mentioned % tenants, income of occupants, age of properties, values of properties, condition of properties, value forecasts...all risks factors we still use today. Some maps mentioned race. It varied based on who was doing the survey. Some high risk "red" zones had POC and some were all white occupants. The real correlation was income, condition/value of properties and not color, race. Again, lower income people live in areas that cost less because they are more likely to be older and in fairer condition near freeways, industrial property... Race was removed from the map surveys. It didn't change the risk rating at all. All the other factors are still used today.

Map areas were rated A, B, C, D with D being the riskiest for loan repayment. Some called the D zone the "red zone" because loans cost more because they were riskier because assets were worth less and were depreciating. We still charge people more for riskier loans today. Loans were given to the property owners and not the occupants or residents. Some D zones had more blacks, Latino residents because they were lower income and these areas are cheaper to rent, own. 80% of the D zone property was owned by white people. White people were the ones who got loans with higher interest rates in the "red" zones not POC. They still got loans, more loans than before the program. It was never "black residents = red zone = no loans for black people." The government programs actually brought a lot of money to all of the areas so they could improve their property or buy more property. There were no affordable loans prior to this. You mainly had to pay cash. Many old red zones are extremely affluent areas today like San Francisco, New York and Los Angeles. Research has proven it did not have a long term negative affect on those areas today. The entire report is riddled with this type of misinformation and lack of understanding. It's like the authors asked AI for summary of redlining but asked AI to make sure it was racist.

FTR I'm a Latina born and raised in Los Angeles and speak Spanish, English. I see racism every day in LA. I've been in real estate over 40 years. I specialize in single and multifamily properties in lower income areas of Los Angeles. I've appraised Section 8, low income housing projects, property in high risk areas. I'm 100% for fair housing and against racism. I know a thing or two about this issue. I'm the first to call out and fight true racism. There is so much real racism that it's ridiculous to waste time, energy and money stoking nonexistent racism against the Planning Dept and City. They should be working on the income gap. Huge waste of city funds to pay for this report.

I just sent an email to the leaders of the Planning Department.

I'm a Latina real estate appraiser, broker in Los Angeles. I've appraised real estate in LA in lower income areas for over 40 years. I've written about LA real estate for decades. I'm also involved in LA politics being nominated to the Prop F Committee by Mayor Garcetti.

I just read most of the LA Historical Housing and Land Use Study. I was upset by this inaccurate report so I wrote an article about it linked below. The authors of the "study" clearly don't understand the basics of economics or income inequality. This should have been peer reviewed before being published. People will now assume this is a true research study because the city paid for and sanctioned it.

The authors don't even understand the full history or implications of "redlining." There has been lots of peer reviewed and published research about the implications and long term effects of redlining. The authors presented a one sided view of the HOLC maps and loan program.

The worst part of this report is that it basically calls the current LA City Zoning and Planning Department racist. The authors believe that the Planning Dept can solve income and wealth inequality when the causes are under the jurisdiction of the labor department. It's as ridiculous as blaming the DMV because most white people can afford to own more expensive cars than most POC, Latinos. It's basic economics. The government needs to work on the income gap. FTR I'm Latina.

Yes, we do have racism and a housing crisis but it's not caused by past redlining. Light touch zoning, easing development red tape, reducing some building overregulation and overruling NIMBYs would make a big difference.

https://mary--cummins.blogspot.com/2024/09/racist-los-angeles-planning-report.html

DISCLAIMER: https://mary--cummins.blogspot.com/p/disclaimer-privacy-policy-for-blogs-by.html

Mary Cummins

Sunday, September 22, 2024

Promoting People like Julian Glover who Promote the False Narrative of Allegedly Racist Appraisers is Racist and Wrong

Julian Glover was recently on the San Francisco Association of Realtors DEI panel. While I promote DEI (Diversity Equity and Inclusion), BLM, antiracism, civil rights, fair housing ... I don't promote racist people who promote racism. Promoting the false narrative of the allegedly "old white male racist appraiser" who allegedly "lowball blacks, latinos" is racism, ageism and sexism against appraisers besides an outright lie. I say this as a 58 year old female light skinned Latina appraiser.

When Julian Glover was a total unknown small time reporter in Northern California he intentionally sought out and promoted stories about unverified racial bias in real estate appraisal. He publicly stated in writing in the ABC website that people should send him stories about real estate and race. He was officially the "ABC7 News Race and Social Justice Reporter Julian Glover." In his bio linked above he states "In 2021 and 2022 my reporting on discrimination in the home appraisal process and devaluation of Black neighborhoods prompted action by the Biden-Harris administration and spurred legislation in Congress to address longstanding inequities." There was no devaluation of black neighborhoods. His articles didn't prompt the action. It was George Floyd's death in 2020, BLM and DEI. I followed his stories and did the research as an appraiser with over 40 years of experience as a licensed real estate appraiser and broker in California.

I would be the first person to go after a racist appraiser which is why I investigated the facts. I initially was like "WTF appraiser did this?!" Then the facts proved the values were market value. If only an alleged reporter would have done the same research and sought out an expert appraiser. Julian Glover didn't because it would have ruined his fake story and path to promotions, media attention and more money. He saw how people loved to get irate over articles about alleged racism. He got a lot of traffic and more ads were sold. It was his ticket to fame and fortune.

Julian Glover didn't even have to seek out an expert, request a review appraisal or request a new historical appraisal. I emailed him my research about the properties and appraisals in question proving they came in at market value, see links below. Just because a POC, anyone gets an appraisal value less than what they want does not mean it's automatically racism. I researched all his stories for a while then started writing my own articles because he never replied or corrected his stories. They're all in this blog.

Julian Glover then worked on the false and misleading televised program "Our America: Lowballed" which has been totally debunked by research and facts. This fake documentary covered all the fake cases which have been proven wrong by independent researchers. I wrote articles about every fake case as did others. Glover promoted the fake paper by Andre Perry. AEI proved Andre Perry's paper was false and incredibly misleading. White owned homes aren't worth more than black, Latino owned homes because "racist" appraisers went out and lowballed blacks, Latinos to "steal" their money. There weren't even any appraisers, appraisals involved in Andre Perry's values. They were done by robots, software programs specifically Zillow. Zillow is extremely inaccurate. Even Zillow states it's not an appraisal and not be relied upon for anything.

Here are the facts. Whites make more money than blacks, Latinos. People who make more money have more money. People who have and make more money buy more expensive homes in more expensive areas. That's why most white owned homes are worth more than black, Latino owned homes. Whites also own more expensive cars. Maybe people should sue "racist" Kelly Blue Book and CarMax. The issue is the income gap. Appraisers have nothing to do with the income gap. Neither does the housing industry. You can yell at, sue, be racist to appraisers all day long and it won't change anything. Fix the income gap and you'll fix the wealth gap!

Julian Glover, Andre Perry, ex HUD Marcia Fudge, Jillian White, Junia Howell and others have promoted these false racist narratives for their own agendas. Their agendas are to promote themselves and make money which they did. They were promoted and now receive more money for books and speaking engagements. Now they're even DEI "experts!" If I were as unethical and racist, I too could write a book, article, make a video about how all "races" other than Latinos are "racist" and lowball Latinos. I won't because I'm not a lying, unethical, racist person. How do these people live with themselves? They claim they want to fight racism yet they are the ones who are racist and inciting others to also be racist.

Here are the fake Julian Glover articles I covered. Someone probably saw a high Zillow value not realizing Zillow isn't accurate. When you have an older smaller home in fair condition Zillow value will be much higher than actual because it's averaging values of all homes in the area. Below are some of Julian Glover's fake articles and the Lowballed program I covered. I know I covered at least two more. I'll try to find them.

Cora Robinson

https://mary--cummins.blogspot.com/2021/07/racial-discrimination-alleged-by-cora.html

Shaheed

https://mary--cummins.blogspot.com/2021/06/alleged-racial-discrimination-case-in.html

Lowballed which I did finally watch

https://mary--cummins.blogspot.com/2022/10/abc-will-be-airing-false-misleading-our.html

DISCLAIMER: https://mary--cummins.blogspot.com/p/disclaimer-privacy-policy-for-blogs-by.html

Mary Cummins

Saturday, September 21, 2024

Housing Crisis Solution is Light Touch Density by AEI, Mary Cummins, Real Estate Appraiser

light touch density, housing crisis, mary cummins, american enterprise institute, housing, real estate appraiser, real estate appraisal, single family, duplex,triplex,low density, zoning, multifamily,residential

I fully support light touch density. It will provide more lower cost housing naturally and the government wouldn't have to spend a dime. The plan calls for allowing 1-4 units in single family zones. The new homes blend seamlessly with existing neighborhoods. They look like a single family home from the street yet provide housing for two to four families.

The Forgotten Solution to the Housing Crunch: A Premiere of the AEI Housing Center’s Documentary on Light-Touch Density

"American home prices have risen nearly 50 percent in just four years, and the two sides of the housing reform war haven’t budged an inch. One side wants high-density apartments, and the other opposes changing single-family detached zoning. Is there a third way to keep housing more affordable? One American city suggests there is.

Please join us for the premiere of The Forgotten Solution to the Housing Crunch, a nine-minute documentary that highlights Charlotte, North Carolina, and explains how light-touch density (LTD) can create housing abundance by legalizing small-scale residential development that is compatible with single-family detached neighborhoods. LTD adds homes, but unlike subsidized housing, it requires no subsidies, income limits, rent control, or federal government involvement in zoning decisions. Formal and informal discussions will follow the documentary premiere."

Tobias Peter and Arthur Gailes: Light-Touch Density Data and Case Studies
https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/LTD-Video-Premier-Panel-FINAL.pdf?x85095

AEI Housing Center: The Forgotten Solution to the Housing Crunch

https://www.aei.org/events/the-forgotten-solution-to-the-housing-crunch-a-premier-of-the-aei-housing-centers-documentary-on-light-touch-density

DISCLAIMER: https://mary--cummins.blogspot.com/p/disclaimer-privacy-policy-for-blogs-by.html

Mary Cummins

Friday, September 20, 2024

Squatters, Graffiti at 7571 Mulholland Drive in Los Angeles, California by Mary Cummins Real Estate Appraiser

squatters, graffiti, vandalism, 7571 mulholland, los angeles, california, taggers, mary cummins, real estate appraiser,real estate appraisal, real estate, bel air, hollywood,

Home at 7571 Mulholland Dr in Los Angeles, California has now been covered in graffiti by the same vandals that vandalized Oceanwide Plaza. You see their tag namesi.e. AKER. Arrest them and make them work graffiti clean up in prison. #graffiti #vandalism #losangeles #california #marycummins #realestateappraiser #realestateappraisal #7571Mulholland

5725 sf home on 18960 sf lot 4 bed 4 bath built 2003. 2018 listed for about $5,000,000. Listed for lease 2020 for $49,000/month. Currently in foreclosure as of August 28, 2024. John Middleton is the owner. He owes $4.75M and home might be worth less than that in its current condition.

DISCLAIMER: https://mary--cummins.blogspot.com/p/disclaimer-privacy-policy-for-blogs-by.html

Mary Cummins

Wednesday, September 18, 2024

California Bill CA AB3068 Adaptive reuse: streamlining: incentives. Commercial Adaptive Reuse to Residential by Mary Cummins Real Estate Appraiser

UPDATE 09/27/2024 Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed the bill. Will they try again next legislative session or just give up? We really need a streamlined adaptive reuse process to build more housing without all these extra limiting requirements. And this is exactly why we have a housing crisis. Frustrating.

"While I strongly support efforts to address California's housing crisis by promoting adaptive reuse projects, this bill raises several concerns. The proposed compliance and enforcement mechanisms for labor standards, including the issuance of stop-work orders for any violations, represent a significant expansion beyond existing law, which limits this remedy to a narrow subset of violations, such as those posing immediate threats to health and safety. Moreover, the bill lacks clear procedures for contesting violations or addressing noncompliance, creating considerable uncertainty that could lead to delays, and increased costs, potentially making projects financially unviable - ultimately undermining the bill's goal of increasing housing production."

I agree the bill as written would not have encouraged reuse because there were so many restrictions.

https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/AB-3068-Veto-Message.pdf

ORIGINAL 09/18/2024 : AB 3068 would allegedly encourage and expedite the process of converting office space to mixed-use housing projects in city centers like downtown Los Angeles, California. This bill encourages counties and cities to have a plan to streamline the process under certain specific conditions with lots of caveats. In reality it appears to add more red tape making it ineffective and pointless.

This looks like "concepts of a plan" to me. In fact there are so many restrictions and requirements that I think the bill makes it financially unfeasible so it may not help at all. I also don't see a time table or enforcement procedures so this may be worthless. It may just improve the politician's image ala "we're solving the housing crisis!"

These silly bills and all this red tape are the reason we have a housing crisis in California. Developers are hobbled by the restrictions. They'd lose millions if they built a building that complied with all the restrictions so it'll never happen. The notion of the bill starts out okay but by the time it reaches the Governor's desk you need to jump through a million impossible hoops, every planet in the universe must align and you must agree to lose millions of dollars for the next 100 years.

From KRON4 “California’s downtowns are desperate for ways to inject vitality into their streetscape,” said Haney, who serves as chair of the Select Committee on Downtown Recovery. “While the demand for living downtown is at an all-time high, many urban centers simply lack the available housing. If we are serious about jump-starting the economic engine of our cities, we need to remove the red tape that makes office to housing conversions nearly impossible.”

From the actual bill My summary: Building must be less than 50 years old, must use Union labor, must preserve street facing facades, cannot be subject to a Conditional Use Permit CUP, must have low and mid income housing...

"The Planning and Zoning Law requires each county and city to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for its physical development, and the development of certain lands outside its boundaries, that includes, among other mandatory elements, a housing element. That law allows a development proponent to submit an application for a development that is subject to a specified streamlined, ministerial approval process not subject to a conditional use permit, if the development satisfies certain objective planning standards, including that the development is a multifamily housing development that contains two or more residential units.

This bill would deem an adaptive reuse project a use by right in all zones, regardless of the zoning of the site, and subject to a streamlined, ministerial review process if the project meets specified requirements. requirements, subject to specified exceptions. In this regard, an adaptive reuse project, in order to qualify for the streamlined, ministerial review process, would be required to be proposed for an existing building that is less than 50 years old or meets certain requirements regarding the preservation of historic resources, including the signing of an affidavit declaring that the project will comply with the United States Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation for, among other things, the preservation of exterior facades of a building that face a street, or receive federal or state historic rehabilitation tax credits, as specified. The bill would require an adaptive reuse project to meet specified affordability criteria. In this regard, the bill would require an adaptive reuse project for rental housing to include either 8% of the unit for very low income households and 5% of the units for extremely low income households or 15% of the units for lower income households. For an adaptive reuse project for owner-occupied housing, the bill would require the development to offer either 30% of the units at an affordable housing cost to moderate-income households or 15% of the units at an affordable housing cost to lower income households. The bill would require at least one-half of the square footage of the adaptive reuse project to be dedicated to residential uses. The bill would provide, among other things relating to projects involving adaptive reuse, that parking is not required for the portion of a project consisting of a building subject to adaptive reuse that does not have existing onsite parking. The bill would authorize an adaptive reuse project subject to these provisions to include the development of new residential or mixed-use structures on undeveloped areas and parking areas located on the same parcel as the proposed repurposed building, or on the parcels adjacent to the proposed adaptive reuse project site if certain conditions are met."

DISCLAIMER: https://mary--cummins.blogspot.com/p/disclaimer-privacy-policy-for-blogs-by.html

Mary Cummins

Friday, September 13, 2024

Cindy Chance Out as CEO of Appraisal Institute, a Total Shame, by Mary Cummins

09/23/2024 More insight into the firing of Cindy Chance from the Appraisal Institute. This may explain some of what is happening. This is copy/pasted. Link to original pdf is below.

From: jamorin@me.com

Sent: Friday, February 23, 2024 9:33 AM

To: Paula Konikoff <

pkonikoff @appraisalinstitute.org

>; Adomatis, Sandra <

sadomatis@appraisalinstitute.org

Subject:

RE: Upcoming Speaking Opp

I do hope the balance of the meetings go very well. I have been refl ecting on both of your responses to my email, I feel like I did a poor job of conveying my overall concerns.

I promise this is the last exchange on this topic from me

. The last thing you need is someone sniping from the sidelines, especially when I am sure it is perceived as self-serving and anti the new CEO.

I have made it clear to you both that I am less than impressed with her negative and damaging statements that she continues to make about me and “past leadership” – which frankly includes the Board of Directors too, a concept apparently lost on them. I had hoped that my not-so-subtle plea to you both to have her tone down the rhetoric would have been met with a ceasing of the actions. To my dismay, it has continued as recently as the joint regional meeting this week according to several people who called me afterwards. I know that in this light the rest of what I am about to say will likely be dismissed in whole. But please read it at least once with an open mind.

As a dedicated member, I have always been proud of our collective commitment to excellence, leadership, and the advancement of our profession. This pride stems from our organization's historic emphasis on the knowledge, expertise, and contributions of its members, which has positioned us as industry leaders and earned us unparalleled respect and credibility.

Recently, however, I have observed a shift in the organizational focus that concerns me deeply. The emphasis has immediately moved away from the collective voice and leadership of our members towards a more centralized representation by our CEO. While I recognize and respect the importance of a dynamic CEO in guiding our organization, I am troubled by the potential implications of this shift. Maybe the moss has grown under my feet and the future is passing me by.

Diminishing Member Visibility

: Historically, our organization has thrived on the diverse expertise and leadership of its members. The shift towards a singular representation, primarily through the CEO, may inadvertently diminish the visibility and contributions of our member leaders. This could lead to a perception that our organization is drifting away from its member-centric ethos, which has been a cornerstone of our identity and success. Continuity is great and I think for some relationships that makes good sense, but that continuity used to be a hallmark of the elected leadership, each bring the next one on and passing the torch over the four-year service period.

Impact on Member Engagement and Value

: The strength of our organization lies in its members. Their engagement and sense of belonging are tied to seeing their leaders represent and advocate for them. When communication and representation become more centralized, it risks creating a sense of detachment and undervaluing the diverse expertise within our membership.

Long-Term Reputation and Credibility

: Our organization's reputation as an industry leader is deeply rooted in the collective knowledge and leadership of our members. A shift towards a more CEO-centric approach might raise concerns about the sustainability of this reputation. The diverse voices and insights of our member leaders have always set us apart and driven the profession forward. Being super critical, I cannot believe that either of you are enamored with the tone on the

communication ’from her desk’. They have been insulting and demeaning. Is the best message we off er someone gets stuck in a big closet when the homeowners are arguing with other? Thank God it “hasn’t cost her any friends yet” when talking about appraisers. We have members everywhere doing interesting, complex, and interesting work, work that would be perceived as important and contributing. 4.

Transparency and Communication

: The recent instances, such as the lack of timely communication about our President's involvement with a Federal agency, highlight a growing concern about transparency and inclusivity in communication. Keeping members informed and involved is essential for maintaining trust and a sense of community. Today’s Appraisal Now has no mention of a single offi cer, their travel, and meetings on behalf of the organization.

Considering these concerns, I urge a reconsideration of the current approach. It is crucial that we strike a balance that respects and harnesses the strengths of both our CEO and our member leaders. Our collective leadership, transparency, and member-focused ethos are not just our legacy but our greatest assets moving forward.

I haven’t touched on the instructor’s meeting that took place last week, but it is cause for even more concern. The dumbing down of our tests and coursework plays to the lowest common denominator. Allowing anyone to teach without the minimum amount of training is dangerous. I encourage you to talk to the mentors working on the AIPAREA program about their experiences with students who have been through our previously challenging curriculum versus those who went another route that was easier. The diff erence is stark – is that who you want to be?

I am committed to AI and its mission, and I share these thoughts with the utmost respect for all parties involved. We can continue to grow and lead our industry without losing the essence of what makes us unique and respected.

Thank you for considering my perspective. I do not want a response from either of you

– both are too busy with other eff orts on behalf of the members. I ask only if you consider these points, take a moment, and see if the pathway you are on is the right one. If you feel like it is, then Godspeed and execute to the best of your ability. I’ll know from what I see if I am a guy tilting at windmills. I am afraid the wind is blowing and the moss is growing.

Jim Amorin, CAE, MAI, SRA, AI-GRS, CDEI"

Jim Amorin was the CEO of AI until February 2023.
https://www.appraisalinstitute.org/insights-and-resources/insights/newsroom/ai-news-releases/2022-11-17-appraisal-institution-announces-resignation

He just deleted his LinkedIn page
https://www.linkedin.com/in/jimamorin/

Link to original pdf

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1720HuaQJTwYPTpZ1r4qrjKQb_FEIzgqz/view?usp=sharing

09/16/2024 Article on Biznow about Cindy Chance's departure

https://www.bisnow.com/national/news/capital-markets/appraisal-institute-ceo-terminated-following-leadership-opposition-125913

09/13/2024 Cindy Chance just commented at HousingWire.

https://www.housingwire.com/articles/appraisal-institute-fires-ceo/

"Appraisal Institute CEO fired following “secret” board meeting

Cindy Chance said she received no specific feedback from the board prior to her dismissal

Cindy Chance, the CEO of the Appraisal Institute, was terminated during what she described as a “secret board meeting” on Thursday night that she was excluded from.

The Appraisal Institute now faces a backlash from members who support Chance, a veteran nonprofit leader who joined roughly a year ago and pledged to make governance reforms and support the work of on-the-ground appraisers.

The Appraisal Institute did not respond to HousingWire’s request for comment, but in a letter to members on Friday, the trade group said that Chance is “no longer in her role,” and a search for a new leader would soon begin. John Udelhofen will step in as interim CEO.

“We are committed to finding a leader who reflects the mission, vision and values of the Appraisal Institute and helps us carry forward the progress made towards our Strategic Plan goals,” Board President Sandy Adomatis wrote in a letter to members.

“We want to reassure you that we take our mission as Directors of the Appraisal Institute seriously. We are moving forward with our progress on the top goals in our Strategic Plan to modernize our education delivery and development of new materials and continue to modernize technology and offer the programs we’ve heard are most valuable for you. As is our mandate, our efforts will remain focused on recruiting and retaining member professionals. We will continue our great work with PAREA, and our efforts in the areas of diversity, equity, and inclusion that include further expansion of college and university relations.”

Chance told HousingWire on Friday that she received “no specific feedback” prior to the termination notice. She said she was terminated without cause."

"I’m happy to give you my perspective. I have been excluded from the secret board meetings and have received no specific feedback prior to the termination notice.

“Could you please provide details regarding your departure as CEO of the Appraisal Institute?”

From what I understand the Board called a secret meeting last night at which they voted to terminate me without cause. People have been saying this would happen since the Q3 board meeting. I heard about them planning to fire me through leaks and innuendo, not from the Board itself or any of the officers. I'm very proud of my work and my focus has always been the welfare of the members and the appraisal profession.

“Is it true that the board voted to terminate your position at an executive session earlier this month?”

I assume the vote happened at last night’s secret meeting, not the one on September 3rd, because I got the notice by email last night. There have been a number of special, secret meetings and there was no performance review in any legal or practical sense that I could see.

“Were there any disputes between you and the AI board? If so, what were they?”

You’d have to ask them. I’m on the record as recommending governance overhaul, but I wouldn’t call that a dispute- that was a recommendation based on my fiduciary responsibility to the organization. I was executing successfully and communicating transparently to the Board and the membership regarding my progress on our board approved goals.

“Are you considering legal action?”

I'm not one to back down in the face of injustice. Appraisers have a responsibility for the public trust - and that’s important to consider in bringing any and all issues to light.

“Who is running AI following your departure?”

I would guess the Board President and other member officers are effectively running the organization based on my observation of their central role in this drama as it unfolded. They stepped in to make significant decisions including directing staff, firing key contractors and ending partnerships, so that’s what I would expect will continue.

“What's next for you professionally?”

I hope to find a welcoming professional home where my skills and abilities can do good - preferably in my fields of expertise which are ethics, education, and real property association management."

Appraiser friends just posted that Cindy Chance is no longer the CEO of the Appraisal Institute. So much for all the stories from Appraisal Institute saying the rumor she was going to be fired is a lie. It was true. A.I. President, Sandra Adomatis, SRA, sent this message out today, 9/13/24:

“Dear all,

We are writing to inform you that as of today, September 13, Cindy Chance is no longer in her role as CEO of the Appraisal Institute. We are pleased that John Udelhofen has agreed to operate as interim CEO and look forward to working with John to ensure our mission continues unabated.

We want to reassure you that we take our mission as Directors of the Appraisal Institute seriously. We are moving forward with our progress on the top goals in our Strategic Plan to modernize our education delivery and development of new materials and continue to modernize technology and offer the programs we’ve heard are most valuable for you. As is our mandate, our efforts will remain focused on recruiting and retaining member professionals. We will continue our great work with PAREA, and our efforts in the areas of diversity, equity, and inclusion that include further expansion of college and university relations.

A project team will be established immediately to commence a search for a new CEO. We are committed to finding a leader who reflects the mission, vision and values of the Appraisal Institute and helps us carry forward the progress made towards our Strategic Plan goals.

We appreciate your continued membership in and support of the Appraisal Institute and look forward to updating you on our progress.

Your friend,

Sandra K. Adomatis signature

Sandy Adomatis, SRA"

Above is the notice from AI. Below is notice that the meeting is cancelled.

Cindy Chance announced yesterday on LinkedIn she is no longer with AI as of September 12, 2024.

"It has been a challenging and rewarding journey getting to know and defend appraisers. The pressures on the profession have impacts to consumers and the public, and I hope that people will pay increasing attention. I move on now from the Appraisal Institute, with gratitude for the many wonderful appraisers who shared their stories, described their challenges, and whom I have been deeply honored to serve."

I just noticed Cindy Chance posted this right before her notice above.

"As a 501C6 organization, the Appraisal Institute is an association dedicated to appraisers, the profession and the public. The Board has a fiduciary responsibility to act at all times in the best interests of the members and mission, and the staff and I and Chapter Executive Directors are dedicated to serving members and advancing our mission.

With that in mind, I want to remind you to please join us and make your voice heard on our annual membership meeting webinar this Friday, September 13, 2024, at 2 pm, CDT! This meeting will include the rescheduled report on the 3rd quarter regular Board of Directors meeting.

Please share!"

It included a link to the now cancelled meeting.

August 30, 2024 I sent an email to the board of directors of the Appraisal Institute.

"I was just informed that AI has proposed a motion and vote to remove CEO Cindy Chance. I believe this is not in the best interest of AI, the industry or real estate appraisers.

I was forwarded the letter written by Craig Gilbert and fully support his position. I'd just like to add that CEO Cindy Chance was a breath of fresh air at AI. I was talking to appraiser friends about more of us appraisers finally joining AI if Chance is at the helm. Chance finally spoke about important pressing issues for appraisers today. This is vital as we are in a quickly changing industry that needs a new solid direction forward. Please, reconsider this decision.

Real Estate Appraiser, Expert Witness for over 40 years
Mary Cummins
Los Angeles, California"

Email from President of the Appraisal Institute Craig Steinley September 2, 2024 denying the rumor she would be fired. This is clearly a lie.

"Hi Mary,

Thank you for reaching out and staying involved with the Appraisal Institute. I appreciate your participation and your membership – we are better off when we all work together as One Appraisal Institute.

I’m not sure why one of our members decided to post a letter about the board that lacks facts and relies on conjecture. As appraisers, we’re taught to rely on solid data before drawing conclusions. It’s disappointing that most of what was written in the posted letter is inaccurate and unsupported. #NoFactsThere

I hope you’ll stay involved and when an actual issue arises that requires us to understand our members’ recommendations, please don’t hesitate to write again.

Craig

Craig Steinley, MAI, SRA, AI-GRS, AI-RRS
2023 President of the Appraisal Institute (AI)
State-Certified General Appraiser
AQB-Certified USPAP Instructor
Providing Real Estate Appraisal and Consulting Services since 1979
605-348-0791
csteinley@appraisalinstitute.org
https://appraisalinstitute.org/about

September 4, 2024 AI posted about this publicly. "Appraisal Institute

A public announcement from Appraisal Institute President, Sandra K. Adomatis, SRA."

I also received email replies from Tom Boucher, Tina Mindemann, Elaine Ramirez and Allen Gardiner. They were polite and totally vague. Why even reply at all since the rumor was true. No reply would have made more sense.

This is so disappointing. A group of us were finally going to join AI to support Cindy Chance's new positive direction promoting appraisers and our profession. Previously I thought AI was just a group of old white men using the organization as a club. They basically kissed the government and industry players' ass to get grants, sell classes, sell books, sell seminars, sell $15,000 MAI designations and further their relationships in the industry. Now I doubt I'll ever join. I don't even want to take their free classes right now. I'm so glad now I didn't shell out money for a membership. Happy I didn't have the money when I was about to sign up last month.

The IRS 501 3c nonprofit mission of AI is to promote the appraisal industry and appraisers. They clearly are not doing that. AI is instead doing what government, politicians tell them to do instead of looking at the facts and independent research. I feel AI is promoting the false narrative of the biased old white male appraiser. They supported the PAVE task force. PAVE hasn't changed anything except adding more paperwork for appraisers. We always had to take bias, nondiscrimination training. We always had ROV Reconsiderations Of Values. PAVE was made to solve a problem that doesn't exist so politicians can say "look what we did for POC. Vote for us!" The real issue behind the wealth gap is the income gap which has nothing to do with appraisers. They need to help POC make more money so they can afford more expensive homes in more expensive areas.

I'm beyond disappointed with the Appraisal Institute.

DISCLAIMER: https://mary--cummins.blogspot.com/p/disclaimer-privacy-policy-for-blogs-by.html

Mary Cummins

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

Wednesday, October 2, 2024

Saturday, September 28, 2024

Sunday, September 22, 2024

Saturday, September 21, 2024

Friday, September 20, 2024

Wednesday, September 18, 2024

Friday, September 13, 2024