Hi everyone! I recently appraised a Quercus texana (Red Oak) from some pictures and... well here is the senerio, There was a water main break in my clients front yard, the city showed up a couple of days later and by then the front yard in which the tree stood which sloped up a few feet from the sidewalk was completely saturated and the street was a small river. the pipe ran under the root system between the trunk and the sidewalk. The tree probably stood about 6-8ft up the slope from the sidewalk. A backhoe operator came and started digging and the tree slowly toppled over onto his tractor. The operator wasn't hurt but he had to get help removing the tree off the backhoe to clear the blocked street. Anyway I was called in to do an appraisal from pictures of this incident, I measured some other Water Oaks & Live Oaks in the immediate area as there were no more Red Oaks & determined the DBH to be (with reasonableness) to be about 22" spp. rating 85, condition 85, Location 98 - Appraised value came out to $13,085.00. The client got another appraisal from a Landscape Co. for $19,268.00, He stated that he judged the value of a healthy, well shaped, and well located 25" diameter Red Oak. Both judgements are from photos of the tree after it fell.And both appraisals are from the Guide for Plant Appraisal 8th Edition.My veiwpoint was that I couldn't determine the exact health of the tree from the photo. My question is am I being to reasonable? There was also a 3" difference in the estimated DBH.Thanks, Ken Six

Reply to post by Ken Six, on March 20, 2000 at 22:13:00:

Hello, Ken. Don't fret too much over the difference in results. As you pointed out, there is a 3" difference in the diameters you used, and that makes a big difference to start with. Also, the condition factor was apparently different. That is based on professional judgement and expertise, tempered with a little bit of caution (reasonableness). As long as you did the valuation objectively and can defend your position, don't worry about it. Maybe the other guy is sitting at home right now wondering if he can defend the higher value.

The point is, neither of you is necessarily wrong. You came to different results for various reasons, but that doesn't mean either is wrong. There is no single 'value' for any tree that can be considered the right value.

Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on March 20, 2000 at 22:13:00:

Thanks Russ, for reminding me to look at the cup half full. Ken

Reply to post by Ken Six, on March 20, 2000 at 22:13:00:

Ken, Russ is corrct on the most basic issue: there is no "right" value, at least from an appraisal. "Right" will be determined as a fact by the parties in negotiation or maybe in court. "Right" will vary case by case, maybe even for nearly identical trees.

How can that be while remaining Objective? Well, to begin with Value is not a physical characteristic and is not directly measurable. And, the Facts (which are what Objectivity is all about) include many non-tree factors such as beneficiary, rights or interests of the parties, perceived benefit and so forth. Finally, where there is limited evidence assumptions have to be made and there will be variability among those making the assumptions and a lower level of Confidence or reliability than if there were better evidence.

Reasonableness can be considered two (2) ways. 1) How reasonable were your assumptions? Did you take a mid-range position, a low-end and conservative position or a high end, best case position. 2) Is it reasonable relative to an established definition of value or rules of thumb.

This is not to say that an opinion value must be reasonable against some arbitrary measure. Value should be reasonable in the context of the facts.

You both took Replacement Cost approaches and seem to have made minimal depreciation deductions for Sp. Con & Loc. If the definition of value that applies is Replacement Cost and the depreciation judgments are not way off, the results may be pretty reasonable. If, however the definition of value which applies is Contribution to Real Estate Value, then Replacment Cost results may be unreasonable. It might require a qualified real estate appraisal or adjusting Location depreciation to propety value (there will be a lot about this in the new 9th Edition).

The key point in this case may be the ownership of the tree (was it really in your client's yard rather than in the ROW) and the limitations, if any, on fee simple ownership rights. Even if the tree is owned by your client, if it is in a waterline easement the ownership interest may be limited. The city may have certain rights that allow them to damage the tree without liability. Stated another way, the "owner's" valuable interest in the tree might be less than the otherwis estimatable full value. Again there will be a lot about this in the 9th. Or see Jim Ingram's article in Winter 2000 Arboricultural Consultant.

So, there are a lot of things that go into determining reasonableness.