Recently a billboard owner in Charlotte NC paid $86,850 for cutting down 268 trees.
see www.charlotte.com/observer/1011trees.htm
TFM had rated them at $147k. Court went by the NC DOT figure of $86k because DOT planted trees.

On the one hand, $300+/tree is a lot more than other judgments I've heard of in billboard/tree cases, so this is a victory of sorts.
On the other, this judgment disregarded TFM and solidified a faulty method of appraisal.
Problem is, DOT goes strictly by diameter inch, ignoring the fact that cross-sectional area is a truer measure of value.

In condemnation cases, I've used TFM and COC for treeowners who lost trees to road widening.
Every time, the DOT's much lower values were taken in mediation as truer. I haven't been deposed (yet), and customers were not eager to talk details, so I don't know any more.

Has anyone had a better experience with this kind of gov't agency muscle overriding math and science? Please share it if you do; I want my customers to get a better shake the next time around. Ultimately, I'd like to see NC DOT change their valuation method.
Thanks

Reply to post by Guy Meilleur, on October 14, 2001 at 09:08:41:

First, keep in mind that tree appraisal is not "math and science" alone, although we must rely on those disciplines to accomplish the task. Appraisal is the process of developing an opinion of present worth of future benefits to the beneficiaries. Value is not based on science, it is an economic tool based on social conventions. We use science to make our assessment and to make comparisons, or to define the condition of the object being appraised. We use math (a science) to produce the results our opinion is based upon.

Second, we (the arborist appraiser) are not the deciders of fact in most cases. We present our opinions of value, but others must decide what the 'true' value is. In this case, DOT gave a cost figure that the court accepted as being representative of the loss.

Third, this does not necessarily represent a precedent in all cases. The tree owner (DOT) was made whole by the award of replacing the trees based on diameter. It's what they wanted. Others can still present their arguements that value can be based on other factors or methods (TFM, RC or Cost–of–Cure) that may be pertinent to the case.

Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on October 14, 2001 at 09:08:41:

Gee, that first paragraph sounds pretty good. What are your source references?

And the next is true also: the "fact of value" is set by the decision makers... parties, arbitrator, judge or jury. Apprasiers explain the supporting fact patterns.

Unfortunately, some of these cases do set precedent. If not ruling precedent they color the intrepretation of case law. Subsequent cases make rulings as a matter of law (bad law or mis-read law) when in fact the rulings or judgments should be matters of fact.

My sense is that methods emplying diameter inch per diameter inch are easier to explain and for the decision makers to grasp. The fault may well lie in our inability to explain more complex methods, which may in fact better represent the facts. That makes it OUR fault as much as the greater muscle of agencies.

To the technical points: Russ is right. TFM is not necessarily a truer guage of "value." It is a truer measure of cross sectional area, which may or may not be a truer measure of physical function. Physical function may or may not be directly related to value.

I have seen the reverse of what Guy describes. Inch for inch methods (either dia or area) that overstate value becasue they do not depreciate the initial indication from replacment cost which is standard methodology in TFM or RCM.

The methodological problem I have with inch for inch methods is that they may either overtstate value by failing to depreciate at all or they may implicitly depreciate and nobody knows how that relates to facts.

That said, they remain a useful arbitrary measure of damages in some situations.

The ideal situation, IMO, is one in which all resonable measures of damages are admissable, i.e. where methods are not arbitrarily excluded or discarded.

Reply to post by Guy Meilleur, on October 14, 2001 at 09:08:41:

GUY,
I AM AN INSURANCE ADJUSTER WHO COMES ACROSS VALUATING TREES ON OCCAISION. TYPICALLY I LIKE TO UTILIZE AN EXPERT HOWEVER, IT IS ALWAYS NOT COST EFFECTIVE. CAN YOU ADVISE ME OF A PUBLICATION THAT I CAN PURCHASE THAT WILL HELP ME PLACE A FAIR AND REASONABLE VALUE ON TREES AND SHRUBS? I WOULD GREATLY APPRECIATE IT.
THANKS,
BRENDAN

Reply to post by BRENDAN CALLAHAN, on October 14, 2001 at 09:08:41:

Brendan, the simple answer is yes, there's a publication but no, you can't use it very effectively. But it is not really that bleak.

The important background is that plant value is not a physical characterstic, it cannot be directly measured and is not intrinsic. So the publication does NOT list values that you can pick from like a menu.

"Fair and reasonable" value is basically what the parties decide it is. That's what happens in market transactions. But trres and shrubs, in place, are not really market goods. If the parties have divergent perceptions of value, you would retain an expert to consider all surrounding facts and sort it out. The expert would also be guided by law, regulation or contract between the parties.

But if you already know that the cost of the expert is not effective you already know the settlement range is quite narrow... if there was a big spread or a big potential award you'd gladly pay the expert. So maybe you just negotiate a settlement.

If you need documentation for your settlement the simple approach is what a single, retail x,y,z shrub would cost. Go to Home Depot and find out. Add a mark-up, say 2x, for installation.

The bigger the plant the harder it is to get good cost data and the more significant depreciation becomes. The publication sets forth methodologies to estimate costs and to depreciate for various factors that require professional expertise to evaluate.

So on the low end it's common sense. On the high end get an expert. There's really not much in between.

In case you are interested in understanding the methodolgy employed by experts it is Guide For Plant Appraisal, 9th Edition, 2000 by CTLA and published by ISA. You can link to ISA publications from the links page here.

Reply to post by Scott Cullen, on November 25, 2001 at 20:56:18:

Brendan, I agree with Scott. And befire you decide that getting an expert is not cost-effective, be sure you're looking at all the options.
A Registered Consulting Arborist by ASCA has the highest qualification. A Certified Arborist by the ISA may also have the experience to help. Contacting those organizations will get you referred to many experts.
Also, before cost-effectiveness is determined, you must know the possible benefits of hiring an expert. For landscape assets, an expert looks at value in ways you never thought of, and might find more than you imagined.
Guy