TSwizzle
I am unburdened by what has been.
FaceBook, LOL !!
Two minutes of fame for the attention seekers.
Two minutes of fame for the attention seekers.
-
Features
Florida couple sees home appraisal jump 40 percent after they remove all traces of “Blackness”
- Thread starter ZiprHead
- Start date
T.G.G. Moogly
Traditional Atheist
Maybe they asked their black neighbors to get lost while the appraiser was there. They probably asked them to park their pink caddy with the plush carpeted interior somewhere else and tie up their eighteen pitbulls with their Aunt Jemima. I mean, just taking down a couple pictures of the resident porch monkeys? No way!
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
I really don't like being a contrarian on these types of issues because I do believe that there was likely some kind of racial bias, though I think it was probably more subtle, indirect and interacted with other facets of the appraisal.
So, here's the thing: I really don't like structures of stories like this. At a very generic and abstract level, it's basically, we KNOW there are some valid statistics of a thing. Then, someone, posts an anecdote and says, "See?" However, anecdotes are always from a personal perspective where we don't know for sure what is in everyone's head in the story. Essentially, we see an experiment, but the experiment is uncontrolled with possible confounding variables that we cannot know about because we only have 1 person's perspective or some other limited information. That the anecdote seems consistent with the statistics is not proof that the mechanism identified is the actual mechanism that resulted in the outcome.
But all that isn't what bothers me most about it. There's an actual human being somewhere in these kinds of stories on the other end who will inevitably be made out to be an evil villain by many reading the anecdote.
In this specific case it's the first appraiser. The author writes that the first appraiser was rude and had contempt for her working in her office during the appraisal. I don't think that is necessarily a racist thing but instead race and stereotypes may play a more subtle role, i.e. there may be a statistical bias in how whites have a cultural learning over multiple generations about how to ace an appraisal that statistically blacks may have less and this may have played a role, rather than direct racism of an evil appraiser who hates black people. The house the first time may have looked more "lived in" and the appraiser may have wanted direct access to the office sans person working therein. I expect an appraiser ought to remain objective and only have objective criteria to examine and not doing so can have these subtle biases and stereotypes of people not taking care of a house well that can be illogically concluded from people not following the culturally learned procedure of how to react ideally to an appraisal. The stereotypes of blacks can interact with the observations of what is expected in order to deduce these illogical conclusions.
So we have 3 choices:
1. overt racist appraiser
2. racial stereotypes played a role by interacting with unusual observations in an appraisal...more subtle
3. some other confounding variables in objective criteria the appraisers used were mostly responsible for the difference or the coincidence of different appraisers just appraising differently
We cannot really prove which one but I lean more toward the second, life being a complex thing, and systemic racism being a thing that exists.
That's my two cents.
So, here's the thing: I really don't like structures of stories like this. At a very generic and abstract level, it's basically, we KNOW there are some valid statistics of a thing. Then, someone, posts an anecdote and says, "See?" However, anecdotes are always from a personal perspective where we don't know for sure what is in everyone's head in the story. Essentially, we see an experiment, but the experiment is uncontrolled with possible confounding variables that we cannot know about because we only have 1 person's perspective or some other limited information. That the anecdote seems consistent with the statistics is not proof that the mechanism identified is the actual mechanism that resulted in the outcome.
But all that isn't what bothers me most about it. There's an actual human being somewhere in these kinds of stories on the other end who will inevitably be made out to be an evil villain by many reading the anecdote.
In this specific case it's the first appraiser. The author writes that the first appraiser was rude and had contempt for her working in her office during the appraisal. I don't think that is necessarily a racist thing but instead race and stereotypes may play a more subtle role, i.e. there may be a statistical bias in how whites have a cultural learning over multiple generations about how to ace an appraisal that statistically blacks may have less and this may have played a role, rather than direct racism of an evil appraiser who hates black people. The house the first time may have looked more "lived in" and the appraiser may have wanted direct access to the office sans person working therein. I expect an appraiser ought to remain objective and only have objective criteria to examine and not doing so can have these subtle biases and stereotypes of people not taking care of a house well that can be illogically concluded from people not following the culturally learned procedure of how to react ideally to an appraisal. The stereotypes of blacks can interact with the observations of what is expected in order to deduce these illogical conclusions.
So we have 3 choices:
1. overt racist appraiser
2. racial stereotypes played a role by interacting with unusual observations in an appraisal...more subtle
3. some other confounding variables in objective criteria the appraisers used were mostly responsible for the difference or the coincidence of different appraisers just appraising differently
We cannot really prove which one but I lean more toward the second, life being a complex thing, and systemic racism being a thing that exists.
That's my two cents.
Shadowy Man
Contributor
The scientist in me says the next step is to empty the house if all possessions and have an appraiser come with no people present. Actually a few appraisers in order to account for variability.
Emily Lake
Might be a replicant
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2014
- Messages
- 8,554
- Location
- It's a desert out there
- Gender
- Agenderist
- Basic Beliefs
- Atheist
It's a really tough call between the two. When we sold our last house, we had lowball offers, quite a bit under what other townhouses in the same complex had been selling for. It seemed really odd, especially since we had moved out all of our stuff and the house was empty.
Our agent suggested we paint. Most of the house was already pretty neutral, but the kitchen was a light terra cotta, the dining room was a warm camel, and the master bathroom was sky blue with a yellow accent in the inset porthole window. We repainted, and offers rose by about $60K.
It's certainly feasible that bigotry was involved, but it's hard to say that for sure. Home-buyers are fickle, and a surprising number of people can't see past a color they dislike or decor they don't like, or anything that's personal to the current residents.
Emily Lake
Might be a replicant
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2014
- Messages
- 8,554
- Location
- It's a desert out there
- Gender
- Agenderist
- Basic Beliefs
- Atheist
And put up lots of pictures of white people, and have a white person working in the home-office during the appraisal.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 50,637
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
We aren't talking offers, but appraisals.
Emily Lake
Might be a replicant
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2014
- Messages
- 8,554
- Location
- It's a desert out there
- Gender
- Agenderist
- Basic Beliefs
- Atheist
Appraisers are just as human as anyone else is.
Wiploc
Veteran Member
I heard a talk by a county appraiser. He said the official legal goal of county appraisers is to be within 50% of correct. So imagine two $100,000 houses side by side. If he appraised one of them at $50,000 and the other at $150,000, then he'd be within spec.
Two identical houses, but one is taxed three times as much as the other. And that's all the fairness required by law.
This county appraiser said he could do better than that. But the business is inherently subjective.
Two identical houses, but one is taxed three times as much as the other. And that's all the fairness required by law.
This county appraiser said he could do better than that. But the business is inherently subjective.
ruby sparks
Contributor
Were it not for the fact that in blind resume studies, people with typically black names get less callbacks, and that during the run up to the subprime mortgage scandal, black people with identical financial status were offered more expensive mortgages, and that potential purchasers were steered, I might go easy on this one.
And then there is, for example (very easy to find similar):
"According to our analysis, differences in home and neighborhood quality do not fully explain the devaluation of homes in black neighborhoods. Homes of similar quality in neighborhoods with similar amenities are worth 23 percent less ($48,000 per home on average, amounting to $156 billion in cumulative losses) in majority black neighborhoods, compared to those with very few or no black residents".
https://www.brookings.edu/research/devaluation-of-assets-in-black-neighborhoods/
I have not read the actual report.
That said, in the end, I think one has to come away with no conclusions in this case. Maybe suspicions, but even then, there are other possible explanations.
RVonse
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2005
- Messages
- 3,861
- Location
- USA
- Basic Beliefs
- that people in the US are living in the matrx
Exactly. Appraisals mean nothing and even less than nothing if a bank loan is not involved. A house is only worth what someone else is willing to pay for it.
Nor can the free market be racist. When it comes to buying goods or services, money talks and the bullshit (racism) walks.
ruby sparks
Contributor
I think this is the couple in question:
https://www.theroot.com/interracial-couple-s-home-receives-higher-appraisal-aft-1844857147
1st appraisal: $330,000.
2nd appraisal: $465,000.
Article says the bank agreed that the 1st appraisal was off.
It also says that the only things that were different were that the husband was home instead of the wife, and pictures of and his family were on the walls, not hers.
https://www.theroot.com/interracial-couple-s-home-receives-higher-appraisal-aft-1844857147
1st appraisal: $330,000.
2nd appraisal: $465,000.
Article says the bank agreed that the 1st appraisal was off.
It also says that the only things that were different were that the husband was home instead of the wife, and pictures of and his family were on the walls, not hers.
ruby sparks
Contributor
Another anecdote:
"In 2000, the American actor and comedian D.L. Hughley had an appraisal on his home in the Montevista Estates neighborhood of West Hills, a primarily white area in the San Fernando Valley in Los Angeles. Despite a steady uptick in the housing market and the addition of a pool and new hardwood floors, the house was appraised for nearly what he had bought it for three years earlier — $500,000.
In Mr. Hughley’s case, his bank flagged the report.
“They were like, this has to be some kind of mistake because in order for your house to have come in this low; it would have to be in some level of disrepair,” Mr. Hughley said.
The bank ordered a new appraisal, which came back $160,000 higher, and Mr. Hughley went on to sell the home for $770,000".
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/25/realestate/blacks-minorities-appraisals-discrimination.html
"In 2000, the American actor and comedian D.L. Hughley had an appraisal on his home in the Montevista Estates neighborhood of West Hills, a primarily white area in the San Fernando Valley in Los Angeles. Despite a steady uptick in the housing market and the addition of a pool and new hardwood floors, the house was appraised for nearly what he had bought it for three years earlier — $500,000.
In Mr. Hughley’s case, his bank flagged the report.
“They were like, this has to be some kind of mistake because in order for your house to have come in this low; it would have to be in some level of disrepair,” Mr. Hughley said.
The bank ordered a new appraisal, which came back $160,000 higher, and Mr. Hughley went on to sell the home for $770,000".
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/25/realestate/blacks-minorities-appraisals-discrimination.html
ruby sparks
Contributor
I think they were remortgaging. If so, a low appraisal, if accepted, may have negatively affected their ability to do that, especially if they were also hoping to pay for improvements.
Toni, please respond to what I've actually written, not some strawpost in your head.
This thread is not about 'gentrification' (which is a good thing to happen to neighbourhoods), but about whether individual black owners in otherwise majority-white neighbourhoods suffer some kind of systemic evaluator/buyer 'mark down', solely because they are black. I don't believe it, but I'd be willing to look at evidence for or against the idea.
Mortgage companies don't allow a third party to appraise your property and then take your word for it.
I've had my property appraised when I re-mortgaged. But it was a 'desktop' appraisal by the lender. Nobody visited the site, let alone asked how many black people lived here.
So just a bad appraisal. Sometimes people get a second appraisal because they’re not happy with the first. Nothing to do with race. Otherwise, Hughley’s second appraisal would also have been off.
No, that isn't the only difference, and there was a link to the story already in the OP. First off, presumably the first evaluator and the second evaluator were different people.
Oh, stop it. Occam’s razor has no place in thread. Stick to “systemic” this and “institutional” that.
ruby sparks
Contributor
Ok, but it seems to me the bank were the lender here, and the couple were remortgaging with the bank. The valuation must have gone to the bank. And the bank thought the valuation was low. If the bank had gone along with the low valuation, would that not have affected the ability to either remortgage or borrow more against the property for improvements? What was the bank's role in this?
I must say it's somewhat secondary. If anyone gets a low valuation because of racial bias, it's a problem, whatever way you look at it. So the question is not so much 'how did it affect this particular couple' but whether it was bias, and what effects that sort of thing might have generally, if (if) there is indeed racial bias involved. Saying 'it's not a problem because they can get another valuer' or 'it's not a problem because it'll sort itself out if they sell' seems a bit superficial. Surely we should still be concerned if it involves bias. Granted, we do not know that here, but still, the issue of how, if it was, it specifically affected this couple, or anyone else, would be secondary, because that sort of thing would not be harmless.