Thanks for inviting me, Russ. Glad to add what I
can. Just had a judge ask me,"Why are trees
valuable?" If he had been listening to the other
comments he would have known! I told him I could
launch on a long dissertation, but he declined.
Had a letter from an attorney today with a
line about "troubled damages." Had a chuckle on
that one.
Arnold

Reply to post by Arnold Webster, on January 28, 1998 at 16:48:20:

I am working on a construction project where larege native oak trees are adjacent to equipment traffic (no preconstruction fencing, etc.). The property owner is asking for more than a quarter million dollars for two trees. The city is asking me for a valuation base on "contributory" value of the trees to the site. The real eastate value of the property which is undeveloped is around $190,000. Can any of you help me out here with theory and language? I have a vague notion of how this ties into CTLA methodology, but have never approached an appraisal as "contributory" to the real estate values. I would appreciate any experience you have with this terminology.
Dorothy Abeyta

Reply to post by Dorothy Abeyta, on January 28, 1998 at 16:48:20:

Welllll, this should be interesting as you know part of the trunk formula method
is location and what does the tree contribute to that location. Now these folks
are eliminating all of the rest of the factors and just relying on the Contribution
of that tree to the real estate? It doesn't seem that the tree could be more valuable
than the real estate itself. Involving a real estate appraiser might help. Hopefully
some other appraisers will jump on board.

In my humble opinion I think that the condition and size will have to be taken
into consideration also to give a fair value.

Good luck, also hopefully you will post the outcome.

Reply to post by Dorothy Abeyta, on January 28, 1998 at 16:48:20:

Dorothy, I agree with Ellis, in that the tree offers more than just contributory factors. I think what they *might e looking for are a list of the benefits the tree provides, to the property it is on, as well as the adjacent properties in the area. IOW, what are the factors that lead you to your decision on the conditioni and location factors. Shade, aesthetics, noise abatement, wildlife, wind, etc- what makes it worth the value you assign? Can you quantify any of those factors? What about cooling and air conditioning costs? And remember that the tree doesn't know anything about property lines, and thus may influence several properties.
Russ Carlson

Reply to post by Dorothy Abeyta, on January 28, 1998 at 16:48:20:

Hi Dorothy,
Bill Steigerwaldt, our new CTLA rep from the Consulting Foresters Assoc, can be of help. He is doing extensive work on this for the 9th edition. If you need his number, let me know.

Hi to everyone else!!!

Reply to post by Lew Bloch, on January 28, 1998 at 17:53:14:

Hi, Lew. Glad you could stop by our new shop.

Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on January 29, 1998 at 18:10:12:

In my discussions with the city and the district representative I have been specifically asked for a percent of value that the trees contribute to the value of the property. I think the suggestion of invoving a real estate appraiser is good. But the two local appraisers I spoke with seemed stymied by the idea of an appraisal of the lot with the trees versus without the trees. I just want my numbers to be "reasonable" .
The area in question is high value real estate in the SF Bay Area. So I think with or without the trees the value is on the high end for a lot that is only about 0.6 acre. Am I taking the wrong approach with the RE appraisers? What should I be asking to get the answers I need? CTLA appriasal methods lead me to believe that each tree has a value in the 20 - 30 thousand dollar range. Does that mean that the contributory value is $30,000 divided by the value of the undeveloped lot $190,000??? I am not even sure that the lot is buildable with these two large trees. Construction of a house would be difficult at best.
I also am a word person - so I would like to know what sort of terminology or language may be appropriate to describe the answer to "contributory" value of these trees.
Sign me -----still confused and running into a dead line in California

Reply to post by Dorothy Abeyta, on January 29, 1998 at 18:40:05:

A tough call, Dorothy. I think your approach is correct, though, to determine the value of the trees, and then figure out what percentage of the total property value they are. The problem: Is the value of the land really that much less without the trees? If one tree, or both were lost, what would that piece of land sell for, to someone who never knew the trees were there? It sounds to me like this is what they are after.

Reply to post by Dorothy Abeyta, on January 29, 1998 at 18:40:05:

Dorthy, call Bob Hansen - Hansen Tree Preservation in Santa Monica, Ca. He is a member of ASCA - Area code (310) and/or call Randall Stamen he is a certified arborist and an arboricultural attorney, He and his father Ted Stamen are in the riverside area (818)They should be able to help you with info based on facts. As you are also representing all of us in the arboriculture community. Gotta go today is payroll. If you can't find the #'s mail me back. Ken Six

Reply to post by Dorothy Abeyta, on January 29, 1998 at 18:40:05:

dorothy,

nice to see we all have consulting probl;ems!!!!! i know you will do great in defending your cause no matter which "angle" you try.
i hope you and your family are well.
i think the new Academy graduating tasks are much more defined now and i may even think of becoming an associate member again.
even going to the academy in 1999.
i was so disappointed with asca "vascillating" in the past - but i do believe in the Consulting Arborist as a valued profession. does spelling count?
miss you and all the good people i have met.
anyway... i' m sure i' ll be seeing you soon.

gerald posner

Reply to post by Russ, on January 30, 1998 at 00:48:03:

Guys and dolls!
Welcome to the plant appraisal puzzle, and Hi to you,too, Mr. Posner. There have been studies as to the value of trees AND landscaping to the total value of the property, and we are trying to get more and better studies. Generally, 10 to 15% is used, but in more upscale areas, this can be higher. I, too, have trouble finding real estate appraisers comfortable with our problem, but there are some out there. In my state, Md. it is possible for the trees to be worth more than the total value of the property, so, GO FIGURE! The revised GUIDE will be more attuned to this problem.
Good luck, Dorothy.
Lew

Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on January 29, 1998 at 18:10:12:

While Real Estate people say they aren't real sure about the value of trees, I find it very interesting that a significant number of them in the Boston area have large trees drawn in on their display adds.
The same with architects, how many of their prospectives show large trees even when they are not part of their project.
So I think deep down these folks do know the value of trees, they just can't quantify it and as a result don't want to admit that there is any value at all.
Jim