Yes a thorough report takes time and money. Yes MV is vastly overrated.
See attached for one case that used Cost of Cure, which fits timber trespass better than TFM (which is a DRC) imo. The below is another sample outline from another case. If you are happy with your help so far it's hard to see what you can find here; very few consultants post here.
There are national companies--senna, davey etc.-- that move big trees and i suggest you contact them for an apples-to-apples replacement cost, which is often more defensible than DRC.
Planting very fast trees like hybrid poplars may also fit your case.
Hi treeseer - help me understand, please. Obviously, insurance companies needed competent tree appraisers to help quantify damages for property loss, and the arboricultural industry responded with published guides that offer clear, concise figures for baseline values. To my uneducated eyes it does seem as if the R.E. industry professionals have a similar 'guide' for establishing clear, concise baseline values... the Sold listings!
Never the less, it is true both MV and Cost approach valuation methods contain a measure of subjectivity whereby each appraiser then adds value above and beyond the baseline. And, if we all agree there is a demonstrable link between the relationship of trees, shrubs, plants and landscape etc. to real estate and market value, rightly so. That leaves me thinking the primary reason why MV approach is considered either a less inappropriate or overrated tool for insurance appraisal than a cost approach is that it generally tends to incorporate a higher percentage of subjective measure into the appraisal formula. Which, I presume, results in a greater number of peak-to-trough 'outliers' from the mean appraisal but, perhaps most notably,
higher outliers above the mean. At least from that viewpoint, it's easy to understand why insurance co.'s might dismiss MV approach appraisals as inappropriate.
That may or may not be true, I don't know, but here's my personal experience and observations. Using as an actual example, one tree removed from our property that was appraised using TFM by two well qualified and experienced Registered Consulting Arborists, has a 30% disparity in valuation. If the TFM actually provided the same clear, concise baseline value from which each began their respective valuations, it is apparent that the subjective opinions of each with regard to the had great impact. Is that simple opinion or excessive variation, or any less confusing than a R.E. appraisal that opines the removal of the same tree results in $150k market value loss to a $500k property?
Quite honestly, in my [admittedly cynical] opinion, any approach that includes a subjective component in a formula can be called baloney and only serves to keep the lawyers in business. The only constant in either approach for residential tree and plant appraisal that I see, is the 'appropriate and relevant' type of value sought is a function of the intended use of the appraisal. I probably don't need to tell you which appraisal valuation came from my, or the insurance co.'s, consulting arborist. It will be interesting to see how each defend their valuations in court if necessary, particularly after reading the
Expert Witness paper (a great read, thank you).
Market value arguments aside, I find it frustrating when TFM for very large, but available, trees is nowhere near the actual cost to acquire and transplant a comparable caliper and specie tree. Particularly in those instances where CoC restoration of smaller plantings can not possibly address a loss of privacy in timely fashion. Due to the angle and height of the hillside involved in our circumstance, 3" nursery stock will do -zero- to restore the screening privacy lost by the removal of 16" DBH specimens. Even fast growing species (clump form shadblow is one recommendation) will take many, many years before they would even approach the point of being tall and canopy wide enough to effectively restore the privacy and noise screening lost by what was removed. The entire hillside was essentially clearcut to the ground.
That is why our last assessment DID include an apples-to-apples replacement cost, as well as the preliminary cost to establish an appropriate planting site on the hillside. That of course, requires the ground to be leveled and support walls built as nursery and most available field stock are not adapted to a steep slope. Lawn repair and possibly driveway repair will be required because a crane is necessary since building a temporary access roadway on such a steep slope will require destruction of even more landscape. Oh, did I mention, the hillside is designated a Steep Slope Environmental Protection Overlay District? Protected, as in NO CUTTING! Steep Slope EPOD, as in serious EROSION ISSUES! You can see why this has the potential to be one big costly mess and has become a huge emotional distraction to our lives. I should state very clearly, we don't care about playing negotiating games to secure a big monetary settlement to put in our pockets. The large trees have significantly more value in our lives for their utility and aesthetic value -this property took us years of searching and is arguably unique enough to the area to have previously demanded a premium for it's location, size, mature native trees, plantings and privacy- and we simply want the large caliper trees replaced if physically possible. How big is too big, or how many site hardships to overcome are too many before it becomes physically impossible, or simpy unreasonable?
Sorry to go on, thanks for your comments. I've found each and every post so far contained useful information or insight. It means a lot when you're on a crash course and trying to keep an open mind.
).
