Case Study 2 in Weber et al (2005) involved one of the regional malls built in the 1950s and 1960s where dry cleaners, gas stations, and tire, battery and accessory stores have contaminated the groundwater below the site (used as a source for local drinking water) by multiple contaminants such as VOCs (PCE/TCE), and BTEX.
A third dataset in Case Study 2 of Weber (2005) confirmed reasons of Graaskamp (1984) for the lack of advancement in appraisal. This lack of advancement (also described by Kinnard and Ratcliff) results from:
appraisal consumers feeling appraisal models are not relevant Myers and Beck (1994), Meyer and Reaves (1998), and Canonne and Macdonald (2003) have pointed out many of the problems in appraisal. It is understandable that those most knowledgeable (the U.S. and German Environmental Protection Agencies) list valuation procedures for formerly used sites as their first key brownfield problem.
clients benefit from exploiting appraisal ambiguity (highest and best use analysis and feasibility conclusions based on conjecture allow the easy manipulation of values)
appraisal is highly biased, because the American business ethic allows clients to edit appraisals by withholding fees. Small claims court did not require the appraiser in Case Study 2 to be compensated for 2 months of research on economic feasibility, since the resultant value was not the one that the client needed for financing and this appraiser would not alter the value to meet the client’s needs.
appraisers proven invulnerable to malfeasance. Evidence can be and is disregarded-a judge refused to look at evidence and arbitrarily agreed with a second appraiser (in the same case study) that provided the value that the client needed.
Another appraiser assumed economic feasibility, that the soil was not contaminated, that the brownfield had already been remediated, redeveloped, leased and applied a capitalization rate 2% lower than any sales or surveys to get the precise value needed for financing. It was reported as a violation of USPAP and to a professional society over three years ago. Neither organization has acknowledged the problems.
Another interesting finding is that California courts do not allow the valuation methods used by those that specialize in redeveloping brownfields. These methods are also the ones called for by Federal and State regulations (R-41c and the ASLSF) that solve Redeveloper Problem 1. Contra Costa Water Dist. v. Bar C Props (1992) cited a long list of cases that held the developmental method to be improper. It is suggested that the method is only improper because appraisers have still not developed methodology to solve Redeveloper Problem 1 - a requirement for reliably valuing brownfields.
Case Study 2 also found that a jurisdictional exception precluding compliance with USPAP exists in California. The court found that the first appraiser in Case Study 2 would have had to complete a biased report, arriving at the value needed by the client, in order to be compensated. This practice is though to be fraudulent and illegal in most states.