Thank God I don’t get paid to think! Another appraiser representing the same party as in the preceding expropriation did what he was told to do by his legal counsel. Of course, the appraiser made full disclosure in his appraisal report of his accommodating, obedient, faithful and loyal observance acknowledging that he had been
“requested [by legal counsel] to prepare a draft appraisal report estimating the loss in market value and injurious affection, if any, caused to the owner’s remaining lands, due to a partial expropriation by the…[expropriating authority]” and “to assume a land use potential the same as that set out in a[n].appraisal report.prepared by [the expropriating authority’s appraiser]” that “the Highest and Best use of the site would be a development in accordance with the Official Plan, and the proposed plan of subdivision… the density factor … we have utilized (is) 10.5 units per acre…2 acres is…the balance (is) low density residential, (with) 0.095 acres is subject to an easement for sewers, with draft plan approval assumed in one to two years from the effective date…of appraisal)”.
I suspect the reason that the appraiser submitted his report in “draft” form, prior to issuing a final report was to ensure that he had complied with his marching orders and to have had his report blessed by his legal counsel. Too bad the case was settled prior to the appraiser testifying, as the Board’s response to this appraisal would have been illuminating. Perhaps, opposing counsel and the Board may have cross-examined the lawyer rather than the appraiser. What does AACI stand for?