When put up against the light, NIC’s appraisal of the DeArmond mill site melts as quickly as a snowman in the August sun.

Yes, the public asked for an appraisal. We also asked for an open process. It would be nice, if as City officials have claimed, that this process had been in the public for 20 (or pick your number) years. An open process is good. Citizens are involved. And the results, even if not to everyone’s liking, are in the public interest. In this case, the public benefit should be education. But everything I’ve seen says that it’s not.

After reviewing the appraisal, it looks to me like the appraisal document exists merely as a step in the process. It’s completed, so now the Education Corridor developers can move forward recklessly.

I would not consider it a standard appraisal, and there are no claims in the document that it is one. Quite the contrary. From the cover letter:

Unlike a standard bank appraisal, this appraisal for the Education Corridor is based on multiple conditions that have yet to occur. Would you buy property based on such claims and potential future conditions? Isn’t that risky? Is it responsible for the NIC Trustees, representing the taxpayers who foot the bill, to accept the appraisal based on the multiple assumptions listed?

Here is something I consider to be the meat of the matter:

The existence of hazardous substances would seem to be an important part of the consideration for purchase of any land. It appears, however, to be glossed over. That means the purchase agreement, which I don’t believe anyone has seen, becomes vital. What are the guarantees to the public that the environment conditions will be remediated? Why is the public not allowed to see the purchase agreement?

…the appraiser is not qualified to test such substances or conditions.

Obviously environmental remediation is a vital part of this purchase. So why did the Trustees (or their agent) choose an appraiser who admits to being unqalified? Why not take the effort to find someone who is qualified?

More vital to the discussion is this line:

…the value estimated is predicated on the assumption that there is no such condition on or in the property or in such proximity hereto that it would cause a loss in value.

Apparently Ed Morse has a terrible sense of smell. And his vision is so bad that when he personally inspected the property, he failed to notice the substantial Waste Water Treatment facility in the immediate vicinity of the property in question. Of course, that all depends on what your definition of the word “proximity” is, right?

Consider if the Waste Water Treatment facility were instead a nuclear plant. Would it be excusable for an appraiser to peg the value or a property and not mention that there is a nuclear facility right next door?

Nothing in the report mentions the storm basin that exists on the property:

None of the comparison properties are anywhere near a Waste Water Treatment Plant. None. The properties are all local, nice properties. Nothing is mentioned about the properties requiring environmental remediation before they were developed. Why isn’t that relevant?

This appraisal isn’t unusual. The government appraisals I’ve looked at before (such as for the Kroc Center and Downtown Library properties) are all best-use appraisals where the values are skewed to come out close to what the government officials want. In the end, however, it’s the taxpayer who gets the shaft, not to mention the students who are being shorted education dollars to pay for overt commercial development. If the land is worth less, why not pay less? We’ll never know . . .

As taxpayers and citizens, not to mention community members who need the kind of education NIC offers, what can we do to ensure that educational opportunities are not abused by developers and their friends? How do we get the message out?