Historical September–October 2000 article. Dates, prices, services and contacts describe the source period; current availability has not been established.
To the President of Central West End Bank: I wish to contest the recent appraisal report submitted on my property at 59xx Kingsbury, by Donald E. Roach of the St. Louis Appraisal Company.
The value of the property, in Roach’s view, declined by thousands of dollars from its value in 1995 despite the facts below: – Income (rents) from the property increased 22% since 1995 – Additional improvements have been made including six new furnaces purchased in December 1998. – An unbiased inspection would conclude the property to be in good condition and well-maintained. – Within the same block, two vacant 6 unit buildings have been renovated and two additional vacant buildings torn down since 1995.
There are no more vacant buildings and vacant weed-filled lots in the block where the appraised property is located. – In place of two vacant buildings and two vacant lots, eight new town homes have been built; the latter ones are directly across the street from the property in question.
The townhouses are advertised to sell at $201,050 each. – A few yards down the street at Nina and Kingsbury, the last vacant building in the immediate area was torn down and replaced by another four townhouses of similar quality and value. Given these all-around improvements since 1995, it is strange that my property at 59xx Kingsbury now has less value than five years ago.
It is also noticeable that in listing the sale of comparison properties for appraisal purposes, Roach found it convenient to go outside the area.
While numerous similar properties in this Skinker-DeBaliviere area have been sold recently, including some to Washington University, Roach did not treat any of these properties in his report.
I do realize that property, in the end, is worth what other people are willing to pay for it. Interestingly, on the surface, Roach took this approach in his appraisal document.
In justifying why he took the “sales comparison approach” instead of his concluded higher value indicated by income generation on the property, Roach writes: “Greatest weight has been placed on the Sales Comparison Approach as it considers the actions of buyers and sellers in the subject’s immediate neighborhood and these actions reflect the definition of “Market Value.” Despite his justification for appraising at lower value than his concluded income generation would have given, Roach did not base his appraisal on the market activity in the “immediate” neighborhood, declining to use properties sold in Skinker DeBaliviere. Instead, he used properties located on Enright, Cates, Eastgate, and Westgate to arrive at “comparable value.” I am left to conclude that Roach deliberately devalued the property at 59xx Kingsbury, and, I so charge him.
As such, he operated in a biased, unethical and incompetent manner.
In filing this protest, I request, among other things that the $600 check for appraisal fee be returned to me.
In addition, I request that no appraisal fee be folded into the loan requested from the bank.
To use my monies for this bogus report is in effect to use my own monies against me. Further, it is clear to me that a “windshield survey” of the type once conducted by Team Four on neighborhood properties would have yielded a similar, if not higher, appraisal value.
Finally, it is my hope that Central West End Bank, which has helped to finance stabilization of the the Skinker DeBaliviere neighborhood in the past, is not now a party to any broader efforts to devalue some property in the area to the detriment of some and the benefit of others.
In addition, I am requesting that Central West End Bank reconsider its use of this person and his company in future appraisals of properties in the neighborhood, particularly those belonging to people of certain characteristics.
It is the year 2000, not the year 1861. Sincerely, Ethel Sawyer
Originally published in The Times of Skinker-DeBaliviere, September–October 2000.
Read this article in the original newspaper issue.
Original source: SD_Times2000_09.pdf, printed page(s) 3; PDF page(s) 3.
