From: | CPEO Moderator <cpeo@cpeo.org> |
Date: | Mon, 3 Jan 2000 15:30:34 -0800 (PST) |
Reply: | cpeo-military |
Subject: | [CPEO-MEF] Community Right-To-Know; Appraisal Disclosures |
COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW; APPRAISAL DISCLOSURES By John Yelenick <yelenick@earthlink.net> December 23, 1999 On June 10, 1999, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) announced a series of reforms to assure that homebuyers receive thorough appraisals of their prospective homes and complete warnings of any defects. Under the plan, appraisers must provide a much more detailed evaluation of the condition of homes, including any environmental problems or other impacting factors. The FHA will not insure the mortgage on the home until the defect(s) are remedied. Since December 19, 1991, as found in the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, you as a loan applicant who has paid for an appraisal used by the lender to evaluate your credit application, are entitled to a copy of the appraisal report if you request it in writing. Since September 10, 1979, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has had an indefinite policy (Notice 79-33) that "No existing property can be accepted for mortgage insurance where a hazard is known to exist that will affect the health and safety of the homeowner ... and complete disclosure shall be made to purchaser's in a form approved by the Secretary". Finally, on September 27, 1996, HUD finalized rules that: " (i)(1) It is HUD policy that all property proposed for use in HUD programs be free of hazardous materials, contamination, toxic chemicals and gasses, and radioactive substances, where a hazard could affect the health and safety of occupants or conflict with the intended utilization of the property"... " (3) Particular attention should be given to any proposed site on or in the general proximity of such areas as dumps, landfills, industrial sites or other locations that contain industrial wastes. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) attempts to shield from liability for clean-up costs landowners who acquire property without knowledge of pre-existing environmental conditions on that property, i.e. "innocent landowners". To qualify for this narrow exclusion, however, Congress actually created as an element of each real estate transaction: a duty of inquiry, by the Purchaser, into the ownership and uses of the property. Sellers who transfer property with actual knowledge of a release of hazardous substances are required to disclose their knowledge or lose the availability of the Section 107(b)(3) defense. The November 1991 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) policy entitled:Homeowners Exempted From Superfund Cleanup Costs declares that the "average homeowner will not be required to conduct or pay for cleanup when residential property is part of a federal Superfund site... unless their actions have lead to a release or threatened release of hazardous substances requiring cleanup of their property". However, to come within the scope of this policy, owners of residential property must: (1) provide access to the residential property when requested by the EPA; and (2) residential owners must cooperate with EPA and not interfere with any of the Agency's activities on the residential property taken to respond to the release or threat of release; and (3) residential owners must comply with institutional controls placed on their residential property. Finally, the residential owners may not rely upon this policy, and the EPA may take action at variance with the policy. The August 3, 1995 National Priorities List (NPL) listing policy stresses that NPL sites "are not based upon property boundaries, but rather the areas of contamination"; (e.g., contamination may extend beyond the source property due to contaminant migration). A EPA survey revealed that 95% of the distance from the groundwater contamination site (source property) to the areal groundwater boundary were within 2 miles from the contaminated source property boundary; accounting for 95% of the plumes studied nationally. Real estate brokers/appraisers represent themselves to the public as possessing knowledge, ability and skill in the field of real estate. The profession owes to the public the duty of exercising reasonable competency, judgement and care in advising and rendering services. Therefore, the profession must keep abreast of social, economic and legal developments affecting property. Newly revised State of Colorado real estate contracts attempt to address these issues in the Seller's Property Disclosure, and the standardized contract terms: Appraisal Provisions, Evidence of Title, and Title/Title Advisory provisions. Additional mandates include 'material fact' disclosure requirements, the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, laws governing 'public nuisance', 'negligence', strict liability', 'fraud and misrepresentation', 'duty of care/good faith performance' etc. However, appraisers now also have a mandate to disclose "readily observable" environmental conditions - meaning 'easily observed and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense' (a legally undefined term as of this writing). On July 29, 1999, HUD announced a plan (Affordable Housing Goals) to boost the amount of mortgages available to low and moderate-income families over the next decade by more than 20% (from 42% of its portfolio to 50%) in an attempt to diminish the home ownership marginal pace of growth between minorities and lower income families. The implications of "Environmental Justice" will surely be tested assuming full environmental disclosure. Within the May 1, 1997 "Community Right-to-Know" EPA statement, EPA acknowledges that "One purpose of federal regulations is to address significant market failures. Markets will fail to achieve socially efficient outcomes when differences exist between market values and social values. Two of the causes of market failure are externalities and information asymmetries. In the case of negative externalities, the actions of one economic entity impose costs on parties that are "external" to the market transaction. For example, entities may release toxic chemicals without accounting for the consequences to other parties, such as the surrounding community and the prices of those entities' goods or services thus will fail to reflect those costs. The market may also fail to efficiently allocate resources in cases where consumers lack information. For example, where information is insufficient regarding toxic releases, individuals' choices regarding where to live and work may not be the same as if they had more complete information. Since firms ordinarily have a disincentive to provide information on their releases and other waste management activities involving toxic chemicals, the market fails to allocate society's resources in the most efficient manner. This rule is intended to ameliorate in part the market failure created by the lack of information available to the public about the release and other waste management activities involving toxic chemicals, and to help address the externalities arising from the fact that market choices regarding toxic chemicals have not fully considered their external effects. Through the provision of such data ... overcomes firms' disincentive to provide that information, and thereby serves to inform the public of releases and other waste management of toxic chemicals. Individuals can then make choices that better optimize their well being. Choices made by a more informed public including consumers, corporate lenders, and communities, may lead firms to internalize into their business decisions at least some of the costs to society relating to their releases and other waste management activities involving toxic chemicals. In addition, by helping to identify hot spots, set priorities and monitor trends, data can also be used to make more informed decisions regarding the design of more efficient regulations and voluntary programs, which also moves society towards an optimal allocation of resources. If EPA were not to take this action ... market failure (and the associated social costs) resulting from the lack of information on the use and disposition of toxic chemicals would continue. EPA believes that ... action will improve the scope of multi-media data on the use and disposition of toxic chemicals. This, in turn, will provide information to the public, empower communities to play a meaningful role in environmental decision-making, and improve the quality of environmental decision-making by government officials. " Regards, John Yelenick Rocky Mountain Arsenal Restoration Advisory Board Rocky Mountain Arsenal Site Specific Advisory Board JOHN J. YELENICK REALTY ENVIRONMENTAL ABSTRACTING (Service Marked) You can find archived listserve messages on the CPEO website at http://www.cpeo.org/lists/index.html. If this email has been forwarded to you and you'd like to subscribe, please send a message to: cpeo-military-subscribe@igc.topica.com _____________________________________________________________ Get your favorite topic delivered daily. http://www.topica.com/t/11 | |
Prev by Date: [CPEO-MEF] Army May Use Scottish Technology to Process Chemical Weapons Next by Date: [CPEO-MEF] Compliance | |
Prev by Thread: [CPEO-MEF] Army May Use Scottish Technology to Process Chemical Weapons Next by Thread: [CPEO-MEF] Compliance |