I just dropped in from another galaxy and am using a public terminal. Used Russ's email address to post this message because it's the only one I could remember. Sorry for any inconvenience Russ.

Tim Leary suggests 2/13 that CTLA weasels out of all large values by disclaiming that the values must be reasonable in relation to real estate value. Some truth to that but it's not quite that bad. 8th Edition Chapter 13 actually says '...should usually be reasonable...' 'Usually' is not defined and we might take 'should' as recommended not mandatory as we might take 'shall.' Anyway, as lewbloch points out, 'it's a guide, it's a guide, it's a guide.'

Dorothy's buddy (4/24) pointed out in presentation at ASCA New Orleans conference that 'usually' required a half day discussion all by its very self. Dorothy's buddy would say that it always goes back to reasonableness but not always in relation to real estate value.

It's a question of reasonable and supportable in relation to the definition of value! This concept will go a long way to answer Dr. Leary's question of 2/16. Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) requires a definition of value in every appraisal and report! Get on board tree appraisers.

I'll check in when back from Alderaan.

Reply to post by Darth Vader, on June 26, 1998 at 21:45:33:

Dear Darth,

While I much appreciate your discussion of a highly relavant topic, your misappropriation of someone else's email is not really not acceptable. This is an open board, and all are welcome to participate, but the use of false identification seems particularly unacceptable in these forums, where integrity is held in the highest esteem. I ask that all participants simply use their own email for response. I can accept first-names-only, if you wish, but those who wish to respond deserve to know who they are conversiing with. In this case, I will let the message remain on the board, but reserve the right to remove others in the future.

Russ Carlson, webmaster

Reply to post by Darth Vader, on June 26, 1998 at 21:45:33:

Is this a hallucination or am I back on Russ Carlsons web site?

As The Dark Lord Mr Vader has observed;

"It's a question of reasonable and supportable in relation to the definition of value!"

I agree with Darth (although I reject his use of the dark side of The Force). The problem I have is in the fundamental definition of "value". There currently is a vibrant philosophical debate raging in the field of environmental ethics over the existence of intrinsic value (as opposed to instrumental value) in non-human biotic entities. If we disregard this debate and stick with the traditional anthropocentric definitions of value based upon the "usefulness" of an entity to our species (instrumental value), we still need to define "value". If a plant is "rooted" to a site and ownership is transfered with the purchase of the real estate then I suppose it is logical to assume that the value of that plant can not exceed the market value of the property. BUT WAIT!! Doesn't that lead us to the environmental justice issue I described in my original post last Feb? Or is the true value of the plant a function of the benefits that tree provides to my property (similar to American Forests rational behind CityGreen).
While energies are expended arguing over "should" or "shall" the primary issues remain unresolved. My solution: A paradigm shift away from the feeble attempt to artificially define market value where none exists and a quantification of "value" based upon the environmental benefits to the local ecosystem (payable of course to the property owner!). Okay, okay, so this is not my real solution but I fear that a true examination of "value" would frighten too many in our industry and lead to persecution of heretics like myself (hey, just look at the stink that was made when pruning paint and flush cuts were disproved as valid techniques).

Darth, please do not get Russ upset by using his address. He has the only tree related web site discussion list that hasn't been invaded by the swaggering, dirty, unwashed legions of chainsaw groupies.

Dr Leary

Reply to post by Dr Tim Leary, on June 26, 1998 at 21:45:33:

Tim, I appreciate your admonition to Darth Vader . We haven't yet been invaded by "chainsaw-wielding groupies" yet, and I don't want the light-saber gang here either.

As to values, name me also a heretic. I share many of the views you mentioned. There has been a very gradual shift in public perception away from trees as something that just stands in the way. The "intrinsic" value of the plant, from diverse points of view, are beginning to take hold. Unfortunately, not everyone hods those views. The courts of some jurisdictions still hold that the value is only the value of the land. The problem is that we are (usually) trying to establish a monetary value for an object that transcends our economic concepts. How do you assign dollars to "it was planted by my deceased father"? How much is "it blocks my view of the neighbor's house" worth? These concepts are not dissimilar to the "pain and suffering" that is often awarded by juries, or the wrongful death settlements from the courts. You cannot easily put dollar values on something that is irreplaceable.


Cost of Cure helps, as do the various other methods, by allowing the calculatioin of alternate actual costs to restore lost benefits. But even that only goes so far. And there will always be those who will not accept any method, if it does not meet their needs, or if they cannot easily understand it.

This problem will not quickly resolve itself. Most of the discussions go on between arborists, such as here. We can't do it alone. Until we get the bulk of public opinioni on our side, and that of the courts and other agencies of authority, we are but preaching to the choir.

Russ Carlson

Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on July 02, 1998 at 15:43:43:


YES, BUT HOW CAN WE PUT A DOLLAR VALUE ON WHAT IS ESENTUALLY NATURES ENERGY DOING THE "WORK" AND BIOLOGY TO CAUSE GROWTH OF A TREE.
RATHER ARROGANT AND FOOD FOR THE LITIGATION MACHINE D"ONT YOU THINK?
WORTH A THOUGHT I THINK.

Reply to post by C ARB NORM, on July 02, 1998 at 23:30:43:

This is a good point, Norm. We are trying to take natural (sets of) objects and assign a value based on our economic system. In a sense, it is artificial and arbitrary. However, that is the only way we can define value- in terms of the benefits or detriments to human society. What is a diamond worth? As a rock in the ground, it is worth only that much. But as a piece of jewelry, it can be compared to other objects of value, and rated accordingly. WE are trying to do the same with plants in the landscape. ONe major drawback is that there is little agreement (even among arborists) as to what sets of criteria can best define the values, and how those factors should be rated.

Just because we are imposing our own set of values on naturally occuring or growing objects doesn't mean that the system is not valid. If we don't put a fair and reasonable value on trees, others will establish their own set of values.
Russ

Reply to post by Darth Vader, on June 26, 1998 at 21:45:33:

My grandad once said, "we are born with the intelligence
to know the difference in piss and Pierre, but we must
excercise the wisdom to know which is better to drink."

It seems that the good plant appraiser has to look at all the realitys
that unfold in a situation, and use that wisdom to determine how
to express that in an appraisal. Those appraisers that are good at that
will succed often, those that don't will always question. I have done
enough appraisals to be of the opinion that no two are the same.
I would LOVE to run across just one appraisal that was a "boiler plate"
of another. It would save me GOOBS of time. Some are close, but there is always
a snag somewhere. Every appraisal I do calls on me to use all the resources I have available. Sometimes that
is more than others.

I use the guide extensively as just that, a guide. I try to be extremely careful to note the variables.
The value of the tree can be rather esoteric indeed. The question is, can you defend it.
I approach every appraisal just that way. If I put it down on paper, whether it seems
high or not is not a concern so much as whether or not I can sit in a courtroom
in front of a dettached audience (jury) and defend my position.

The wise appraiser is reasonable, prudent, and knowledgeable at least. Other attributes
can only enhance HIS/HER value more. I am not sure how you bottle
wisdom.

Just some thoughts.

Thanks,

Dennis Brown

Reply to post by Dennis Brown, on June 26, 1998 at 21:45:33:

Cases are indeed endlessly variable. Our reports should, however, contain certain common elements especially the definition of value.

I agree that we should consider the realities and state them. Let the court decide if they are too high. I suggest that we need better articulated bases for our models to back up our ability to "sell" oral opinions. Judgment and intuition (wisdom, if you will) are indispensable but should well supported. See Russ's new thread "valuation concepts" and join in.

See my 10/17 response to Julian re: location.