Appraisers' Free Forum

Ter Shields wrote:

conservatio isn't a use

i disagree. Indeed it is as much 'use' as the lawn of a building.

Well, then Terrel, absolutely everything is a use under that definition, even no use. Me thinks this may be where you turned left.

I feel like i have to use comparables that A - vacant B - are not comprised of native prairie but are comprised on non-native species, and, C-are similar topography and equally valuable if sought to purchase for building a house. There are no native prairie comparables.

RIGHT ON!

Stephen is more than capable of holding up his end of the stick, but I understand his definition of use to include those things that are traded in the open market and can be measured in $$$. Sales of properties subject to a conservation easement are such a thing, but you don't have any. What you have is limited to sales of raw land for development, and that is what you are using. Nothing much else you can do.

Don't forget to run some absorption studies on it and then discount it to PV. It is imperative in any situation such as this even if you had lots of recent sales comparables, but ever more so in the volatile markets we are witnessing this week.

The value to the conservation is pretty much the discounted value to the subdivision developers. What else could it be?

conservatio isn't a use

i disagree.

I wouldn’t call that disagreeing. Dictionaries clearly define conservation as an absence of use.

Indeed it is as much 'use' as the lawn of a building.

Is the “lawn” is an agricultural crop grown for profit? If not, then the vacant land is not in use.

The value of the property should be what it is, and comparables of similar conservation acreage are not available and certainly none that have sold

But again, selling is not a use. Every depiction of the bundle of rights shows selling as a separate stick from using. Once you rent, give away or sell, control of use rights pass to another party. To use it, you would have to keep it.

What better evidence is there that land has no profitable use, than that the owner is better off selling or giving away, rather than paying the property taxes?

actually he cuts hay off the prairie..but that's not necessarily the most profitable use, right?

So you sell net $50/acre worth of hay and taxes are cheap. I still think that is the "as is" use..."As is" you cannot use the lots. Discounting a future utility that is not PROBABLE..and it PROBABLY will not be developed any time soon...makes you speculate. There is no speculation about the current use.

Taken to the extreme, it is like the HBU of a mineral acreage that is 10 miles from an oil well. You can lease it but pretending it will be developed and discounting for the risk (say 8% chance of success, - the average of rank wildcat successes) and projecting future incomes no matter how high is a scenario analysis, not a Highest and Best Use analysis.