Source: https://harriscompanyrec.com/blog/2009/09/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 22:55:53+00:00

Document:
Charleston, S.C.—The apartment market in Charleston bottomed out at the beginning of 2009, asserts Jenny Shelden Pauswinski, multifamily market analyst at Charlotte, N.C.-based Real Data, which tracks apartment markets in the major metro markets of the Southeast, including statistics on over 900,000 units.
Revenue Procedure 2009-47 provides rules for employees who are reimbursed for lodging, meals, and incidental expenses, or meals and incidental expenses only, while traveling away from home, to substantiate the expenses by per diem allowance in lieu of actual expenses. The revenue procedure also provides an optional method for employees and self-employed individuals who are not reimbursed to use in computing the deductible costs they pay or incur for business meal and incidental expenses, or for incidental expenses only if they pay or incur no meal expenses, while traveling away from home. Use of a method described in this revenue procedure is not mandatory, and a taxpayer may use actual allowable expenses if the taxpayer maintains adequate records or other sufficient evidence for proper substantiation.
Revenue Procedure 2009-47 will be in IRB 2009-42, dated October 19, 2009.
FEWA AZ Chapter has a very exciting opportunity for all expert witnesses that wish to improve upon their oral communication skills in court or at deposition. You will not want to miss this outstanding workshop put on by a very experienced prosecuting attorney. Download the attached brochure to find out all the important points that will make you want to sign up. FEWA is cosponsoring this workshop along with the AZ Society of CPA's so we expect a large turnout. Be sure to get your registration in early to guarantee a spot.
SPEAKER: Michael D. Schwartz, Esq.
RESERVATIONS: Required by all. Phone, email or fax resevation.
Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Hope to see you there.
Amicus Briefs Supporting Cert: Is Forcing A Property Owner To Allow Adverse Speech A Taking?
Four amicus briefs have been filed in Macerich Management Co. v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America Local 568, No. 09-235 (cert. petition filed Aug. 24, 2009), urging the Supreme Court to review United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America Local 848 v. National Labor Relations Bd., 540 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 2008). In that case, the Ninth Circuit held that six rules applied by shopping centers to restrict picketing and handbilling by union members violated the California Constitution's free speech clause and therefore impermissibly interfered with protected union activity. The decision required shopping centers to allow speech adverse to the shopping centers' financial interests on their properties. We summarized the Ninth Circuit's decision here.
The Questions Presented ask the Court to revisit PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980), the case in which the California Supreme Court held the California Constitution's free speech clause required shopping center owners make their property available as forum for public speech (in that case, handbilling regarding a cause about which the shopping center was neutral). Most other states, Hawaii included, do not require a shopping center to open itself up as a forum for public speech. See State v. Viglielmo, 105 Haw. 197, 95 P.3d 952 (2004).
When the California Supreme Court's decision was challenged as a judicial taking in the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court held there was no taking because the shopping center "failed to demonstrate that the ‘right to exclude others’ is so essential to the use or economic value of their property that the state-authorized limitation of it amounted to a 'taking.'" PruneYard, 447 U.S. at 84.
The critical difference between PruneYard and Macerich is that in Macerich, state law is being used to force the shopping center to allow protesters on its property who urge shoppers to boycott the very shopping center at which they are protesting, going to the very heart of a property owner's right to exclude.
The cert petition and the Questions Presented are posted here. The case's docket entry is here.
ST. LOUIS — Today the National Association of State and Local Equity Funds (NASLEF) presented its 2009 Leadership Award to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency for its nationwide efforts to educate banks about the mechanics of Low-Income Housing Tax Credit investing. OCC’s Deputy Comptroller for Community Affairs Barry R. Wides accepted the award on behalf of the agency.
In remarks to approximately 150 state and local tax credit equity fund managers, Mr. Wides focused on the benefits of the Low-Income Housing Tax Credits and the need to fill the financing gaps that have slowed affordable housing development in many parts of the country.
The OCC will be holding its next seminar in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania on October 23 in partnership with the Federal Home Loan Bank of Pittsburgh and the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland. Additional events are planned later this year and in 2010.
To provide banks with easy access to information and best practices, the OCC has created a number of fact sheets, resource guides, and directories that can be found on the OCC’s Web site http://www.occ.gov/cdd/taxcreditresource.htm.
The OCC’s Community Affairs Officers, who are stationed throughout the country, are also available to answer questions and provide resource materials to national banks interested in learning more about LIHTC investment opportunities.
Please click on the link below for the California Health Facilities Financing Authority's October 8, 2009 Meeting Agenda.
National Report--Hotel developers who refuse to let the impeding debt market stall their growth may want to look to unconventional sources. Government-issued loans, tax breaks and other public funding options are more prevalent today as stimulus programs increase incentives.
The Land Use Prof blog is back with a new cast of lawprof bloggers. Looking forward to their posts.
The NY Times' review of The Will of the People: How Public Opinion Has Influenced the Supreme Court and Shaped the Meaning of the Constitution by Professor Barry Friedman.
I finally had a chance to read the amici brief of constitutional law professors urging the Supreme Court to review the Seventh Circuit's decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago. In that case, the Seventh Circuit concluded that the Second Amendment's individual right to keep and bear arms is not incorporated against the states. The professors' brief does not focus on the merits vel non of gun control, but on the incorporation doctrine, and asks the Court to "clarify the reach of" the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873) and its progeny, and hold the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights wholesale against the states. If accepted for review, McDonald could be the most significant Supreme Court decision in a generation. Best scholarly treatment of the subject is Professor Michael Kent Curtis's No State Shall Abridge: The Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights (1986).
D.C. Circuit To Consider Challenge To Use Of Eminent Domain To Replace "Lowbrow" Shopping Center With "Gentrified Shopping Experience"
On October 16, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit will hear arguments in Rumber v. District of Columbia, No. 09-7035, an appeal challenging an attempt to take property by the District of Columbia and the National Capital Revitalization Corporation. Note: in 2007, the District abolished the NRDC, and the District substituted as the plaintiff in the eminent domain cases in the D.C. Superior Court.
A powerful group of affluent Hillcrest residents has succeeded in getting the city to declare eminent domain at Skyland -- a controversial move seen in no other commercial land deal in the District except the new baseball stadium. Skyland will be demolished, under the plan, and a higher-quality shopping center built in its place. Target may be its anchor. There could even be a white-tablecloth restaurant.
The Hillcrest activists say they are sick and tired of Skyland's downtrodden look, its lack of what they call quality products, its old discount stores and liquor stores and sidewalk vendors and assorted illegal or undesirable activity. The folks of Hillcrest say both they and the broader community, prosperous and poor alike, deserve far better.
The case has already resulted in one reported decision in which the court of appeal reversed the district court's holding that the plaintiffs' public use challenge was subject to Williamson County's ripeness requirements. See Rumber v. District of Columbia, 487 F.2d 941 (D.C. Cir. 2007), a case we discussed here.The facts also gave rise to Franco v. Nat'l Capital Revitalization Corp., 930 A.2d 160 (D.C. 2007), a decision which established standards for how to plead and prove a claim for pretext. We detailed Franco here.
On remand, the district court dismissed the complaint and granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment because the taking was for a valid public purpose. The district court based its conclusion on several factors. First, the city council issued "specific conclusions" about the shopping center and the surrounding area, noting the area has lagged behind other areas in economic development, and the shopping center is "poorly maintained." Second, the public testimony before the council was in support of the taking. See Rumber v. District of Columbia, 598 F. Supp. 2d 97 (D.D.C. 2009). The district court's opinion is available here.
On appeal, the property owners assert, among other points, that the district court failed to consider their claims that the asserted public purpose for the taking was pretextual. The district court converted the District's motion to dismiss as one for summary judgment, but did not provide the plaintiffs an opportunity to submit evidence of pretext. The property owners assert that when there are substantial allegations that a taking is pretextual, a trial court has an obligation to review the evidence on a case-by-case basis and cannot simply take the government's word. Opening Brief at 33-36 (citing Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), and County of Hawaii v. C&J Coupe Family Ltd. P'ship, 198 P.3d 616 (Haw. 2008)). The brief argues that the Skyland redevelopment was not part of a comprehensive plan, and given the present economy, will not likely succeed in its revitalization goals.
The District's Answering Brief first reiterates the Berman-Midkiff deference standards (pp. 29-33), then repeats the District's proffered public purposes for the Skyland taking, reduction of blight and crime and economic redevelopment (pp. 33-38). The brief asserts these public purposes are "substantial," and that alone defeats any claim of pretext. Brief at 38. Next, the brief argues the circumstances of the District's decision to take show its "declared public purposes were its actual public purposes." Id. at 38-43.
We'll have more after the Court of Appeals issues its decision.
Insights from NAR Treasurer, Commercial Practitioner & Jimmy Buffet Fan!
the National and Historical Data Sections.
by calling HUD USER at 800-245-2691, option 1.
In order for government and industry to make good decisions about real estate public policy and business, they need accurate information about the real-estate world and methods to predict and measure the results of those decisions. Good data and the tools to understand that data are essential for government and businesses to choose the best courses of action for business success and the greater public good. These data and tools are often non-existent, unavailable, or difficult to interpret.
The purpose of the CREDL project is to gather this data, measure the performance of commercial real estate, and develop practical methodologies and tools to help govern business and policy decisions. CREDL also provides a public space for analysis and perspective on issues of commercial real estate, bringing together academic research and industry practices in an innovative collaboration.
Prices of commercial real estate like office buildings, malls and hotels fell further in July, according to a measure published by Moody’s on Monday.
The rating agency’s Moody's/REAL Commercial Property Price Indice was down 5.1% from June, following a 1% drop in the prior month. This gauge is now 30.8% below a year earlier and 38.7% below the peak measured in October of 2007.
At the same time, the volume of sales has dropped this year by nearly a third from a year ago. According to Moody’s, there were 375 sales a month in the first seven months of the year, down from 1,100 a month in 2008.
Moody's Regional Property Type Indices show prices for apartments in the East performing significantly better than in other markets. In the East, apartments have declined 6% in the past year, and 10.5% in the past two years. Nationally, apartment prices have declined 24.4% in the past year.
Other notably weak markets include the office and industrial markets of Southern California. In that region, office property values have declined 25.8% and industrial property values have decreased 24.2% from a year ago.
This article appeared in the ABA's Probate & Property Magazine, May/June 2008 and is reprinted here with the permission of the author.
Appraisers typically send a draft of their appraisal report to attorneys or other real estate professionals for prior review or comment before finalizing their reports. There are several good reasons to do so. This review can be extremely helpful to ascertain if something is missing or inaccurate in the appraisal in terms of the comparable sales or comparable leases used by the appraiser. In addition, the law may require a certain formula for the assessment of damages that the lawyer should check. New York law, for example, requires a two-step appraisal of partial takings, the before and after method, which involves two calculations made by identical methods. Diocese of Buffalo v. State of New York, 248 N.E.2d 155 (N.Y. 1969). Many appraisers, incorrectly, will simply calculate direct damages and subtract them to determine the remainder. A review also may reveal that factual information is inaccurate or incomplete. The appraiser may not be aware that the property should be valued as part of a larger holding. Furthermore, consequential damages to the remainder may have resulted from the use to which the taken property had been devoted; for example, a change in access to the highway may have created consequential damages if it changed the highest and best use of the remainder property.
Although an attorney’s review of an appraisal is valuable, the downside to such process is that draft appraisals create written “prior appraisals” and a paper trail of changes. The danger is that the reviewer may totally revise the report and, in doing so, put the appraiser’s credibility in question. It becomes increasingly difficult for any expert to continue to provide meaningful, reliable testimony when it is shown that the appraiser drastically changed his or her opinion of value after the submission of a draft appraisal. Woe to the obsequious appraiser who increases or reduces value without reason.
The extent of risk of impeachment from “prior appraisals” is directly related to the scope of materials discoverable. The Appraisal Foundation has adopted requirements regarding appraisal report retention. The Appraisal Foundation is an independent organization established in 1987 by the appraisal profession and authorized by Congress as the source of appraisal standards and appraiser qualifications. The Appraisal Standards Board of the Foundation has established requirements for appraisers by adopting Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) to promote and maintain a high level of public trust in appraisal practice. USPAP addresses the ethical and performance obligations of appraisers through definitions, rules, standards, and statements. The Appraisal Standards Board also provides a process for the issuance of advisory opinions.
USPAP requires an appraiser to maintain a work file for each appraisal. The work file must contain the name of the client and related information; true copies of any written reports, documented on any type of media; summaries of oral reports or testimony, or a transcript of testimony; and all other data, information, and documentation necessary to support the appraiser’s opinions and conclusions. Uniform Standards of Prof’l Appraisal Practice Ethics Rule—Recordkeeping (Appraisal Standards Bd. 2008–09).
The appraiser must retain the work file for a period of at least five years after preparation or at least two years after final disposition of any judicial proceeding in which the appraiser provided testimony related to the assignment, whichever period expires last. Id. This is a mandatory part of USPAP’s ethics rule. Thus, the failure to maintain copies of prior reports may violate the appraiser’s ethics, which alone may result in substantial impeachment.
Once it has been determined that a prior opinion of value exists, such opinion must be produced for use on cross examination. It does not matter what label has been put on the prior report—“draft,” “attorney’s work product,” “confidential,” or any other notation. If prepared by the witness, it qualifies as a prior appraisal. Allowing a prior appraisal to be produced provides opposing counsel with a fair opportunity for effective cross-examination, consistent with a party’s constitutional right of confrontation.
The rules of evidence allow a party to impeach the credibility of the adversarial witness on cross-examination through the use of prior inconsistent statements. “Once a proper foundation is laid, a party may show that an adversary’s witness has, on another occasion, made oral and written statements which are inconsistent with some material part of the testimony, for the purpose of impeaching the credibility and thereby discrediting the testimony of the witness.” Prince Richardson on Evidence § 6-411 (11th ed.) (citing People v. Duncan, 385 N.E.2d 572 (N.Y. 1978)).
In New York, it is well established that a prior appraisal prepared by an expert witness testifying at trial may be introduced into evidence to impeach the credibility of the expert’s testimony. See Gerosa, Inc. v. State of New York, 580 N.Y.S.2d 280 (App. Div. 1992); Hicksville Props., Inc. v. Bd. of Assessors, 498 N.Y.S.2d 24, 25 (App. Div. 1986) (citing Swartout v. State of New York, 354 N.Y.S.2d 254 (App. Div. 1974) (“where an unfiled appraisal report was prepared by a party’s trial expert and is inconsistent with his trial testimony, the unfiled report may be introduced into evidence for impeachment purposes and used to cross-examine the witness”)).
One court believed that impeachment by a prior report was extremely important and held that there is no question regarding the use of any other appraisals made by witness himself relevant and pertinent to the proceeding to impeach his credibility by showing that he made a prior statement inconsistent with his testimony on the trial. They are required to be produced for that purpose and to be used to that limited extent on the witness’ cross-examination, which will afford him the opportunity to explain any apparent inconsistency.
In re City of New York (Brooklyn Bridge Sw. Urban Renewal Project), 270 N.Y.S.2d 703, 707 (Sup. Ct. 1966).
[A]ll prior appraisals prepared by an expert witness called to testify or by the appraisal firm by whom that appraiser is employed must be produced upon proper demand. Such appraisals are admissible, if relevant and germane to the proceeding, when utilized to impeach said witness’s credibility by developing prior statements inconsistent with his testimony at the trial.
Sullivan v. State of New York, 292 N.Y.S.2d 244, 247 (Ct. Cl. 1968).
Another court reversed an award because of the trial judge’s failure to allow the impeachment of an appraiser by a prior appraisal. The court noted, “the trial court erred in refusing to direct production of the prior appraisal of the subject property made by the expert witness called by the State to testify and in refusing to permit inquiry into an appraisal made of neighboring land by the State appraiser.” Wettlaufer v. State of New York, 411 N.Y.S.2d 775, 778 (App. Div. 1978).
Prior appraisals generally remain protected until the appraiser testifies. A New York appellate court held that a motion court improvidently ordered the state to turn over an appraisal report prepared in contemplation of the settlement of an eminent domain proceeding. The court stated that the report enjoy[s] the conditional immunity from disclosure which is conferred on material prepared for litigation . . . . To the extent that the report might become relevant and discoverable for the purpose of impeaching the State’s appraisal expert at trial, disclosure at this juncture is premature. We note that if the State chooses to call the expert to testify, a reasonable adjournment will sufficiently protect claimant’s right to cross-examination, but we also note the possibility that the State may choose not to call the expert as a witness. In sum, we cannot agree with the dissent that the cloak of immunity protecting the State’s appraisal report may presently be removed merely because, at some point in the future, the material sought may become discoverable.
CMRC Corp. Ltd. v. State of New York, 704 N.Y.S.2d 219 (App. Div. 2000).
Other states do not have the same conditional immunity of appraisal reports. Kansas, for example, allows appraisals to be used for impeachment if the appraiser was retained by the owner even if another appraiser testifies at court. The court held the valuation opinion is a statement attributable to the landowners that is an admission. Mooney v. City of Overland Park, 153 P.3d 1252 (Kan. 2007).
If an appraiser relies on another appraiser’s report, that report may be used for impeachment.
[W]hile it is true that materials prepared for litigation by an appraiser who is not called as a witness are protected from disclosure as attorney work product . . ., here, petitioners established that Lagassa’s prior appraisal relied upon and incorporated information contained in Thompson’s prior appraisals of the subject hydroelectric power facilities. As such, these prior appraisals are relevant for the purpose of impeaching Lagassa on cross-examination and, thus, are subject to disclosure.
In re Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Town of Moreau Assessor, 779 N.Y.S.2d 608, 610 (App. Div. 2004) (citing CMRC Corp., Ltd., 704 N.Y.S.2d at 219). The interesting thing about this holding is that the prior appraisals were to be used to cross-examine a different appraiser.
The rule in New York is that an appraisal prepared by an expert witness who is not called as a witness and which was intended to be used solely for litigation, or for negotiation in an effort to accomplish a settlement prior to trial, or to establish a basis for a pretaking advance payment is not admissible at trial, as the appraisal enjoys a conditional immunity from disclosure as material prepared for litigation . . . . The one exception to that rule is that all appraisals prepared by an expert witness who is called to testify must be produced as such are admissible when used to impeach said witness’s credibility by developing prior statements inconsistent with his testimony at trial.
Because earlier courts have relied so heavily on the concept of allowing, for impeachment purposes, the discovery of prior inconsistent statements by the opposing party, this court must conclude that statements made prior to the within litigation by the litigation appraiser relative to the value of the contested properties may form the basis to permit discovery thereof.
USPAP standards require an appraiser to maintain a work file for each appraisal. The file must included all prior appraisals, including working drafts. Once the appraiser testifies, any conditional immunity of a prior report disappears. An appraiser can be substantially impeached by the prior appraisal. All of this should be kept in mind when requesting draft appraisals for review.
Michael Rikon, Esq. is a partner in the New York, firm of Goldstein, Goldstein, Rikon & Gottlieb, P.C. Mr. Rikon is the New York Member of the Owners' Counsel of America and a frequent author of and lecturer on eminent domain and property rights.
‘MY TENANT WENT AWOL – WHAT DO I DO?
A situation that commercial landlords encounter all too often is the tenant who suddenly disappears. The tenant simply vacates the premises and leaves no forwarding address. The possibility of recovering damages seems remote. The landlord’s immediate goal is to get possession as quickly as possible so that a new tenant can be brought in. But the landlord may be uncomfortable in simply changing the locks and taking possession without clear confirmation that the tenant has actually abandoned. This article attempts to give some guidance on what to do in this situation.
Consider the hypothetical tenant who is month or two behind in its rent and has apparently vacated the premises with no forwarding address. The tenant has left behind various items of personal property, which can range from outdated furniture to expensive manufacturing or computer equipment. What should the landlord do upon discovering that the tenant has left?
The answer to this question involves both a legal and practical component. When a tenant has actually abandoned the premises, it is not normally necessary to pursue an unlawful detainer lawsuit. Instead, the procedure provided by statute is to serve a “Notice of Belief of Abandonment.” This notice may be given if (a) the rental has been unpaid for at least 14 consecutive days and (b) the landlord “reasonably believes” that the tenant has actually abandoned the premises. If those two criteria are met, and the tenant does not respond to the notice within 18 days of mailing, or 15 days after personal service, the premises are presumed to be abandoned. Thus, the conservative landlord will give the notice and wait the 18 days prior to actually taking physical possession of the premises. Click here for the entire article.
Responding to directives from its Board of Directors and listening to the positive feedback from its membership, the AIR management reports notable improvements in the quality of its Comp Data.
“Twelve months ago, AIR implemented an aggressive plan for gathering lease and sale Comp Data for all listings that pass through our systems. We are currently receiving Comp information for approximately 65 percent of all properties that are leased or sold. Although this performance is significantly improved over where we were a year ago, we are not where we need to be. Our goal is to have 90 percent of all done-deal information in our data base. In order to achieve that goal we need the ongoing cooperation of every broker and agent in every member firm,” Tim Hayes, executive director of AIR, said. He cited the efforts of MULTIPLE Manager Margo Castaneda for the improvements.
Hayes stated that as part of AIR’s effort to strengthen the Comp Database, each time a listing is removed from the system as sold or leased, the listing brokers receive an e-mail from the AIR asking for every basic comp information.
He explained that for a lease, that information includes: transaction completion date, starting lease rate, length of the initial term, rental adjustments, free rent, where the tenant came from, and the procuring broker’s name.
For a sale transaction that information includes: date escrow closed, sale price, seller’s name, buyer’s name, and the procuring broker’s name.
“AIR members benefit significantly if the Association can deliver a comprehensive Comp Database. The only way we are going to do that is if our members contribute a few key pieces of Comp information each time they complete a transaction. So we need, and would be grateful, to receive the cooperation of all brokers in responding to our e-mails as quickly as possible. If we can continue to improve the quality, the AIR will deliver an excellent Comp Product with the potential to put our member firms in a position to reduce overhead by not having to purchase Comp information from sources outside the AIR.
“By sharing the information and creating a comprehensive Comp Data base that is owned and controlled by AIR members, every member enjoys better data at their fingertips, giving them the ability to better serve their clients. It is this spirit of cooperation among AIR members that has made the AIR the greatest “broker only” organization in the country. It is this same philosophy that has made our listing database so valuable,” Hayes said.
TD 9463 contains final regulations that expand the list of permitted loan modifications to include certain modifications that are often made to commercial mortgages. Changes to the regulations are necessary to better accommodate evolving practices in the commercial-mortgage industry. These changes will affect lenders, borrowers, servicers, and sponsors of securitizations of mortgages in REMICs.
servicers, and sponsors of securitizations of mortgages in REMICs.
at (202) 622-3930 (not a toll-free number).
voluntary to obtain a benefit.
revised by this Treasury decision.
exchange for the unmodified obligation that it replaced. See Sec.
the section 1001 modification rules.
securing a qualified mortgage does not disqualify the mortgage.
not included in the proposed regulations.
to cease to be a qualified mortgage on the date the lien is released.
principally-secured test continues to be satisfied.
these types of changes should not require retesting.
satisfying the principally secured test.
release that is not a significant modification for purposes of Sec.
the real property collateral immediately before.
other types of reasonable valuation methods.
commentators should not be included in the final regulations.
U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to this regulation.
U.S.C. chapter 6) is not required.
participated, however, in their development.
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *.
Section 1.860A-0 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 860G(e).
Par. 2. Section 1.860A-0 is amended by revising the entry for Sec.
Sec. 1.860A-0 Outline of REMIC provisions.
principally secured following certain types of modifications.
Sec. 1.860A-1 Effective dates and transition rules.
1. Revising paragraphs (a)(8), (b)(3)(iii) and (b)(3)(iv).
2. Adding paragraphs (b)(3)(v), (b)(3)(vi) and (b)(7).
(D) The release is not within 2 years of the startup day.
(b)(7)(ii) or paragraph (b)(7)(iii) of this section.
(D) Some other commercially reasonable valuation method.
contributed to R, property X had a fair market value of $90,000.
B might default on the loan if the loan was not modified.
is described in paragraphs (a)(8)(i) and (b)(3) of this section.
determined by paragraph (b)(7) of this section.
continues to be principally secured by an interest in real property.
Sec. 602.101 OMB Control numbers.
CFR part or section where identified and described control no.
REG-140492-02 contains proposed regulations on the definition of solid waste disposal facilities for purposes of the rules applicable to tax-exempt bonds issued by State and local governments. These proposed regulations provide guidance to State and local governments that issue tax-exempt bonds to finance solid waste disposal facilities and to taxpayers that use those facilities. This document also withdraws the notice of proposed rulemaking that was published in the Federal Register on May 10, 2004 (69 FR 25856), proposes to remove certain existing regulations that provide rules for determining whether a facility is a solid waste disposal facility, and contains a notice of public hearing on these proposed regulations.
issued by states (Internal Revenue Code section 142).
hold-harmless policy for the benefit of MTSPs.
impact on families residing in assisted housing.
a future notice by HUD.
The King County Department of Assessments is required by State law to appraise all property at its full market value. For commercial property, the primary method used is mass appraisal. The Area Reports produced by the Department of Assessments are intended to fulfill the requirements of State law and conform to generally accepted appraisal principles. Specifically, the property values are appraisals and the Area Reports are mass appraisal reports prepared under the guidance of Standard 6 of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice which governs the Department's appraisal work.
The Area Reports are designed to fulfill step 7 of the requirement by allowing the Assessor to review the mass appraisal results for completeness and accuracy before accepting the recommendation of appraisal staff for valuation changes.
In reviewing a mass appraisal a primary tool is the ratio study. The ratio study compares appraised values to market values. The ratios themselves are formed by dividing appraised values by sales prices. As an example, a property recently sold for $10,500,000 (S) was last appraised at $10,000,000 (A) by the Assessor. The ratio of A/S is $10,000,000 / $10,500,000 = 0.95 or 95.0%. The two primary aspects of mass appraisal accuracy measured by ratio studies are level and uniformity. Appraisal level refers to the typical ratio at which properties are appraised. Appraisal uniformity refers to the fair and equitable treatment of individual properties. Uniformity requires equity within groups and between groups. Uniformity within groups is determined by measuring the magnitude of the differences between each ratio and the average or middle ratio. Uniformity between groups of properties can be evaluated by comparing appraisal levels.
All of these measures are also calculated and presented in the Model Validation Section. Basically, fulfilling the Assessor's lawful responsibility requires the achievement of measures of assessment level at or near one and measures of dispersion as small as possible.
One other element is necessary before we can move on to explain the contents of the Area Reports. As noted above, State law requires property be valued at full market value. State law also provides for a variety of reappraisal cycles among the counties. The King County reappraisal cycle is based upon annual revaluation with a six-year physical inspection schedule. Essentially, approximately one-sixth of the properties are both physically reviewed and revalued each year. The other approximately five-sixths of the properties are revalued using the existing data. With this brief introduction we can move on to a discussion of individual sections of the Area Reports.
The Executive Summary provides a highly condensed version of the information presented in the Area Report. The appraisal date is specified and the date of the previous physical inspection is listed. The market area of concern is identified by name and number. The prominent box contains the "Sales--Improved Valuation Change Summary" which shows summary statistics from the Ratio Study Reports which are found in the Model Validation Section of the Report. This exhibit presents at a glance the comparison between assessment level and assessment uniformity as measured by the relationship between sales prices and assessed values before and after the revaluation effort has been completed. Thus, for both years the average sale price is the same but the average assessed values are different. The change in ratio - here the weighted mean ratio -- should be in the direction of a level measurement of 1.0 and the change in assessment uniformity at least as small as the prior measure. In this box we are looking at the sales sample.
In the next section of the Executive Summary we see the change in average value in the population of commercial parcels in the area as a result of applying the newly estimated valuation from the sales sample to the population as a whole. Finally, the Executive Summary contains the recommendation of the appraisal staff to the Assessor for a change in values in accordance with the mass appraisal performed.
The revaluation process is a complete application of the mass appraisal process as described by Standard 6 including physical review of the properties. The appraisal staff analyze sales, cost of construction, and prevailing levels of rents and operating expenses as they seek to apply the Sales Comparison Approach, the Cost Approach and the Income Approach to valuation. Statistical methods may be used to establish the relationships between factors which influence values of commercial property. The Assessor's staff collects a large amount of data on many characteristics of commercial properties. Statistical methods may allow for the estimation of coefficients for a considerable number of factors which have a role in explaining the value of property.
Deduct for vacancy and credit loss.
Add miscellaneous income to get the effective gross income.
Deduct operating expenses from the effective gross income to determine net operating income before discount, recapture, and taxes.
Select the proper capitalization rate.
Determine the appropriate capitalization procedure to be used.
A display of confidence intervals on these pages are designed to indicate the degree of reliability which may be assigned to the estimated coefficients. The confidence intervals shown present about the statistical low and high limits which contain the estimated adjustments.
The ratio study analysis presents both the ratio results which would have resulted from conducting the analysis in terms of the existing assessed values and the results which result from conducting the analysis in terms of the new assessed values. The key is in the box on the exhibit labeled Lien Date which is synonymous with appraisal date. In the case of the "before" analysis we are looking at an appraisal date one year prior to the current valuation date. In the case of the "after" analysis we are looking at an appraisal date which coincides with the current valuation date.
For example, if our concern is with values estimated as of January 1, 2002 for taxes payable in 2003, the "lien date" box for the "before" analysis will show January 1, 2001 while for the "after" analysis the date shown will be January 1, 2002. We then consider we are looking at the same sales which have occurred over a two year period.
The Ratio Analysis Reports included present a complete set of calculations which enable evaluation of the mass appraisal results. Measures of level, uniformity, regressivity or progressivity as well as measures of the adequacy of the sample size and normality of its distribution are all presented.
The statistical process is complex, and adheres to professional standards of appraisal and the requirements of state law.
– for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990("ADA").
Although the MODERNE (243 West 55th Street) wasdesigned and constructed after the ADA was passed, it suffersfrom numerous violations of the ADA Standards for AccessibleDesign. In particular, its main entrance, registration counter,and public restroom are inaccessible for people withdisabilities. The Complaint seeks relief against AmsterdamHospitality LLC, DKE Realty Corporation, and Jennas LLC, as theowners and operators of the MODERNE hotel.
The AMERITANIA (230 West 54th Street) also has numerousviolations of the ADA Standards for Accessible Design. Inparticular, in violation of the ADA Standards, not one of theAMERITANIA’s 219 rooms is accessible for people withdisabilities. Nor are its main entrance, registration counter,and public restroom accessible for people with disabilities. TheComplaint seeks relief against Amsterdam Hospitality LLC, andBrittania 54th Street Hotel Corporation, as the owners andoperators of the AMERITANIA hotel.
The AMSTERDAM COURT (226 West 50th Street) likewisesuffers from numerous violations of the ADA Standards. Inparticular, its main entrance, registration counter, and publicrestroom are also inaccessible for people with disabilities. TheComplaint seeks relief against Amsterdam Hospitality LLC, and AliBaba Hotel Corporation as the owners and operators of theAMSTERDAM COURT hotel.
The HOTEL CARTER (250 West 43rd Street) also hasnumerous violations of the ADA Standards. In particular, not oneof the HOTEL CARTER’s 614 rooms is accessible for people withdisabilities. In addition, its main entrance, registrationcounter, and public restroom are also inaccessible for peoplewith disabilities. The Complaint seeks relief against AlphonseHotel Corporation as the owner and operator of the HOTEL CARTER.
Finally, RADIO CITY SUITES (142 West 49th Street), alsohas numerous violations of the ADA Standards for AccessibleDesign. In particular, not one of the RADIO CITY SUITES hotel’s113 rooms is accessible for people with disabilities. Inaddition, its main entrance and public restroom are alsoinaccessible. The Complaint seeks relief against 49th StreetHotel Corporation as the owner and operator of the RADIO CITYSUITES hotel.
Each Complaint seeks a declaration that the hotel is inviolation of the ADA, an injunction requiring the owners andoperators of the hotels to remove all ADA violations, and civilpenalties, which by law may be as large as $55,000.
The United States Attorney’s Office commenced acompliance review of approximately 50 Theater District hotels in2005. As a result of that review, the United States Attorney’sOffice has entered into voluntary compliance agreements with 15of those hotels, and is in the process of finalizing anadditional 29 agreements. The five hotels mentioned above arethe first to be sued in connection with that review.
"Our Office has worked for more than three years withTheater District hotels to improve accessibility for persons withdisabilities, and numerous hotels have entered into voluntarycompliance agreements that have greatly expanded the number ofaccessible rooms in New York’s Theater District. The complaintsfiled today demonstrate our intention fully to enforce theAmericans with Disabilities Act in the important area of accessto hotel accommodations." Mr. DASSIN said.
Assistant United States Attorneys LAWRENCE H. FOGELMAN,CAROLINA A. FORNOS, DAVID J. KENNEDY, and HEATHER K. McSHAIN arein charge of the cases.
On Wednesday, September 16, 2009, I'll be on the faculty of "Practical Guide to Zoning and Land Use Law," a day-long seminar in Honolulu. This is an annual program dealing with zoning approvals, constitutional limitations on land use regulations, and administrative procedure.
I will be leading sessions on "Current Case Law and Legislative Update," and "Appealing an Administrative Zoning Decision."
Also on the faculty are A. Bernard Bays and Naomi Kuwaye, who will be covering "Constitutional Limitations on Zoning Actions," "Challenging a Rezoning Decision," "Special Zoning Issues," and "Adoption and Amendment of Zoning Ordinances and Maps. "
I hope you can make it. If you do, stop by and say hello.
More information including a detailed agenda and registration information here.
We've just received word that the Office of Ombudsman for Property Rights is closed effective September 8, 2009 "[b]ecause of budgetary constraints." The office was created two years ago "to assist private property owners and public agencies in understanding and applying the law in matters concerning eminent domain and relocation assistance, including mediation."
Use of this system is pretty intuitive. Enter your functions yi(x) in graphing calculator format (press the "example" button to see some examples).
NEW in 3.1 To compute or graph derivatives, use "deriv()". For instance, deriv(y1) entered for, say, y2 gives the derivative of the function you entered in y1, and deriv(x^3) will give the function 3x^2.
To compute values of your functions, specify some values of x in the "Evaluator" box (use the Tab key to go from one value to the next), and press "Evaluate".
To include plotted points, add them in the area provided (press Example to see the format) or just paste in a two-column table from Excel.
You can get back here from anywhere by pressing the "Everything for Finite Math" link.
Despite the express statutory command, for years Kansas courts prohibited the recovery of compensation in inverse condemnation actions when property was damaged. Instead, Kansas courts held that compensation was only available when the "damage was...necessary to the taking of the property for public use," meaning the condemnor "needed" to damage to occur in order to complete the project. See Deisher v. Kansas Dep't of Transportation, 958 P.2d 656 (Kan. 1998). Otherwise, the courts only permitted compensation when the government physically invaded land, or actually transferred an interest in property.
Thus, in Estate of Kirkpatrick v. Olathe, 178 P.3d 667 (Kan. Ct. App. 2008), the Kansas Court of Appeals held that a property owner was not entitled to compensation when his property was damaged by the city's construction of a roundabout next to his land. The construction resulted in drainage problems on Kirkpatrick's property, and applying the damage statute, the trial court concluded the city inversely condemned the property. But the Court of Appeals, following Kansas precedents, reversed.
Instead of recognizing the statutory language of K.S.A. 26-513(a), which plainly states that compensation must be paid for property damage resulting from a public improvement project, each of these decisions adhered to pre-EDPA case law defining "'take" (or 'taken') in Kansas eminent domain law to mean the acquiring of possession as well as the right of possession and control of tangible property to the exclusion of the former owner." 234 Kan. at 125 (citing Steck and Foster). This disregard for the EDPA provisions has led to legal acrobatics in many of our recent inverse condemnation decisions, illustrated most pointedly by the court's opinion in Deisher, 264 Kan. 762.
In order to give full effect to K.S.A. 26-513 and the other provisions of the EDPA, we disapprove of our prior case law that fails to take into account the statutory requirement that just compensation be provided for property damaged for public use.
The court also confirmed the trial court's award of attorneys fees and costs to the property owner pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 4654(c) (2006) (the roundabout project received federal funds). A pdf copy of the court's opinion is available here. A report on the decision from the Kansas City Star here.
For a cogent criticism of the court of appeals decision, see Jonathan D. Stokes, Taking Back the Fifth: Why Kansas' Approach to Inverse Condemnation Violates the United States Constitution and Leads to Unnecessary Confusion [Estate of Kirkpatrick v. Olathe, 178 P.3d 667 (Kan. Ct. App. 2008)], 48 Washburn L. J. 241 (2008) (available here).
Can Government Use Inverse Condemnation To Take Property Without Compensation?
We can't figure out this Kafkaesque decision from the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court. We really can't.
In Klumpp v. Borough of Avalon, No. A-2963-07 (per curiam), the court held that the government can assert inverse condemnation in order to take property without compensation.
If you had to read that twice to comprehend it, you're not alone.
The Klumpps are long-time owners of a parcel in the Borough of Avalon, New Jersey; they built a summer house in 1960 which was destroyed two years later in a storm. Since that time, the Borough constructed a protective sand dune system on the Klumpp's and other properties, and enacted regulations allowing officials to enter the property and "do such acts as may be required, including removing, destroying or otherwise disposing of any property located thereon without first paying any compensation therefor." The dunes and the accompanying regulations prevented the Klumpps from rebuilding their home, and denied them access to the land, but the Borough never asserted the Klumpps didn't own the land. The property was rezoned from residential to "public use" in 1979. In 1997, the Borough acknowledged they could not rebuild, but denied the regulations took the property.
In 2003, the Klumpps applied for a development permit to build a single family home on their land, but the application could not be processed because they could not show they had access to the land. They sued, seeking a declaratory judgment that they had the access necessary to develop the property. The Borough asserted it had adversely possessed the property, or had gained an easement by prescription or under the public trust doctrine.
After the trial judge granted the Borough's motion for summary judgment, the Appellate Division reversed, holding there was no proof the Borough adversely possessed the property. On remand, the property owners amended the complaint to add claims for ejectment and trespass, and the Borough amended its counterclaim, seeking declarations that it had taken the property in 1962, and that it owned the property outright.
After a bench trial, the court determined the 1979 rezoning was a regulatory taking, but because the property owners did not demand compensation, they were not barred by the six-year statute of limitations. The ejectment and trespass claims, as "continuing offenses," also could not be time barred. The court entered judgment for the Borough, however, since it had taken the property by inverse condemnation.
In an inverse condemnation case, a property owner alleges that the government took the property without the payment of just compensation. Pappas v. Bd. of Adjustment of Borough of Leonia, 254 N.J. Super. 52, 56 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 130 N.J. 9 (1992). A taking by inverse condemnation "does not occur in compliance with statutorily imposed procedures. The essence of the cause of action is a de facto taking of private property under the power of eminent domain." Van Dissel v. Jersey Cent. Power & Light Co., 152 N.J. Super. 391, 404 (Law Div. 1977), aff'd, 181 N.J. Super. 516 (App. Div. 1981), certif. denied, 89 N.J. 409 (1982), vacated on other grounds, 465 U.S. 1001, 104 S. Ct. 989, 79 L. Ed.2d 224 (1984). Inverse condemnation thus provides a remedy designed to insure that the owner whose land was taken de facto receives just compensation.
The court agreed with the trial court that the "conduct of the Borough since 1962 has made plaintiffs' property completely useless, and essentially unavailable to them for any purpose," and "that inverse condemnation has occurred, and that the Borough is the true owner of the property." Having found that the Borough inversely condemned the Klumpp's property and that it had taken their land, the next step was to award just compensation, right?
Plaintiffs argue that the tax bills, Borough records, and recorded title ownership indicate that they continue to be the true owners of the property. These are indicia of plaintiffs' bare legal title, however, and nothing more. The conduct of the Borough since 1962 has made plaintiffs' property completely useless, and essentially unavailable to them for any purpose.
It is the taking of possession without payment that constitutes the very essence of inverse condemnation. The fact that plaintiffs have legal title does not refute that conclusion. The proposition that "only the holder of legal title can be an 'owner' of property finds no support either in our jurisprudence or in everyday conversation." Jock v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of Twp. of Wall, 371 N.J. Super. 547, 556 (App. Div. 2004), rev'd on other grounds, 184 N.J. 562 (2005). Once plaintiffs became aware of the physical occupation of the property by the Borough, the burden shifted to them to recover just compensation.
The decision below is based upon a fundamental misunderstanding of the inverse condemnation cause of action. Inverse condemnation is a remedy designed to provide just compensation to landowners whose land has been improperly taken by the government without complying with due process of law through the Eminent Domain Act. In an inverse condemnation action, the aggrieved landowner who has demonstrated a taking of land by the government obtains redress in the nature of mandamus to compel the institution of condemnation proceedings by the government, ultimately leading to the payment of just compensation.
There is no authority for the proposition, espoused by the court below, that inverse condemnation may be utilized by a municipality to take land without complying with the provisions of the Eminent Domain Act, and without paying just compensation. The inverse condemnation remedy, designed to protect landowners, cannot be used by municipalities to steal land in violation of a landowner’s constitutional rights.
Petition at 2-3 (emphasis original). We recommend reading the entirety of the petition.
SIOR's dynamic quarterly magazine addresses the concerns of industrial and office real estate practitioners. Articles by industry experts focus on topics from the evolving paradigm in commercial real estate brokerage to effectively managing offices and technology. Professional Report will reinforce your professionalism and give you the tools to excel in sales and leasing. You may request a complimentary copy before ordering your subscription.
Click here for a subscription order form.
Professional Report feels that the information contained in the publication is accurate. However, the information is not guaranteed and the Society of Industrial and Office REALTORS (SIOR) does not assume any liability or responsibility for any damages, real or imagined, resulting from inaccurate or erroneous information. Views expressed are not necessarily those of SIOR. Articles are copyrighted by SIOR or, at times, by the author and no part of any article may be reproduced in whole or in part without written permission.
For articles published prior to 2004, please click here.
1. Two of the country’s three largest ports.
2. An organized, but congested distribution hub.
3. A world of growing economies exchanging products, and the need to store these products as they arrived / departed our shores.
Industrial market is in serious pain. Los Angeles area industrial vacancy rates are down 8.2%, and the increase in space has led to a drop in rental rates by 10% or more.
Martin Vartanian, the AIR’s IT Director, has issued a reminder to members of the multiple benefits readily available at AIR’s web site at www.airea.com.
Among the most useful links on the site, says Martin, is one enabling you to search all AIR member brokers. “And if members don’t see their own bio, I invite them to contact me to update their bio or create a new one for them,” Martin said. He can be reached by email at mvartanian@airea.com or by phone at (213) 687-8777.
Other features of the web site are the capacity to have your own property featured for a nominal fee, a Calendar of Events, a page featuring all members of AIR’s Board of Directors, and the Benefits and Services of AIR.
NH&RA will be convening our 2009 Fall Developers Forum at the Taj Hotel in Boston on November 2-3, 2009. Online registration is now open and the hotel is taking reservations at our group rate. Click here to register online today!
We are planning our curriculum and would like to solicit your input. If there are any topics that you would like to present, or issues or emerging industry trends that you would like to see discussed at the meeting, kindly forward your suggestions to Thom Amdur, tamdur@housingonline.com.
Willets Point United has filed an amicus brief supporting their fellow New York City property owners in the public use case now pending in the New York Court of Appeals regarding the Atlantic Yards "redevelopment" project in Brooklyn, Goldstein v. New York State Urban Dev. Corp. As we noted here, Willets Point is under the takings gun itself, and has our Owners' Counsel colleague Mike Rikon helping them (he also filed the amicus brief).
An independent judiciary should not be limited to a rubber stamp of approval. It is incorrect that the First Department would find that it was bound by a determination that luxury condominiums were "blighted." By precluding its review, a court does violence to the fundamental separation of powers doctrine which represents the constitutional check on power in our form of government.
Furthermore, the decisions made to condemn are not legislative determinations. The determinations are not made by any elected officials, but by a hand full of appointees who are responsible to no one. It is simply incredible that these decisions have been held unreviewable. The decision making process to condemn private property is not made by a representative deliberate assembly.
Br. at 15-16. The merits brief of the Brooklyn property owners is posted here.
The NY Times' report on the Atlantic Yards appeal is posted here, and a recent op-ed on the case is linked from this post.
Spell PACER backwards and you get RECAP, a no-cost alternative to the federal courts' electronic documents database. Its creator says the new service is "turning PACER around" with the goal of "build[ing] the nation's most comprehensive public archive of freely-available federal judicial records."
Though federal court officials are skittish about security, more than 7,000 downloads have been made since Princeton University's Center for Information Technology launched the site, www.recapthelaw.org, on Aug. 14.
Documents in RECAP's database are available at no cost, in contrast to the eight cents per page charged by PACER. Free court records are available elsewhere online at Web sites like justia.com and publicresource.org, but what sets RECAP apart is that it is self-populating. Any document accessed through PACER (short for Public Access to Court Electronic Records) is uploaded automatically to RECAP's online archive.
RECAP started out with more than a million documents, chiefly from the Southern District of New York (238,098), the District of Columbia (219,049), and the District of Massachusetts (217,315). New Jersey has about 5,000.
That represents a smidgeon of the more than 500 million documents that have been electronically filed with the courts. But documents are continually being added, and Stephen Shultze, a fellow at Harvard University's Berkman Center for Internet and Society, who worked on RECAP, estimates that the hundreds of documents uploaded per day at first has grown to thousands.
RECAP is an add-on or plug-in to the Mozilla Firefox browser, which, like RECAP, is a free, open-source program.
The City has carefully formulated an economic development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including–but by no means limited to–new jobs and increased tax revenue. As with other exercises in urban planning and development, the City is endeavoring to coordinate a variety of commercial, residential, and recreational uses of land, with the hope that they will form a whole greater than the sum of its parts. To effectuate this plan, the City has invoked a state statute that specifically authorizes the use of eminent domain to promote economic development. Given the comprehensive character of the plan, the thorough deliberation that preceded its adoption, and the limited scope of our review, it is appropriate for us, as it was in Berman, to resolve the challenges of the individual owners, not on a piecemeal basis, but rather in light of the entire plan. Because that plan unquestionably serves a public purpose, the takings challenged here satisfy the public use requirement of the Fifth Amendment.
The city's contention was characterized by the Connecticut Supreme Court, as well as the U.S. Supreme Court, as an effort "projected to create in excess of 1,000 jobs, to increase tax and other revenues, and to revitalize an economically distressed city, including its downtown and waterfront areas." New London's lawyer took the position in oral argument that even if the city were to take a Motel 6 to replace it with a Ritz Carlton in order to generate higher tax revenues, that would be a permissible "public use." The court's majority agreed, thus deferring entirely to the judgment of municipal redevelopment agency functionaries, and de facto allowing them to pass judgment on the constitutionality of their own handiwork. Thus, it was the perceived quality of the town's redevelopment plans that carried the day.
But as the Kelo case wended its way through the courts, the city's vaunted plans began unraveling. By the time oral arguments were heard by the Supreme Court in April 2005, the proposed five-star hotel that would cater to Pfizer's conjectured upscale guests was scrubbed. It went downhill from there. Even though the redevelopment project was begun in 2000, and the court ruled in favor of the town in 2005, nothing has been done on the ground after the taken neighborhood was razed, except for an attempt to create a Coast Guard museum, which ran out of funds and had to be abandoned. By degrees, the 90-acre tract of waterfront land that comprised the redevelopment area became a trash-strewn, weed-infested urban wasteland. The latest dispatch from New London's newspaper, The Day, reported that the site is becoming a favorite of birds and bird watchers.
Recall that at one point, one of the players on the City's side actually blamed the objecting property owners for killing the project, and as noted in Professor Kanner's column, the site is reverting to its natural state.
The Most Important Land Use Legislation in 30 Years: What SB 375 Means For Public Agencies, Developers, and Their Lawyers"
LIGHT AT THE END OF THE COMMERCIAL TUNNEL?
Lawrence Yun, NAR chief economist, noted the pace of decline in commercial real estate moderated, but the leading indicator has fallen sharply and quickly from the peak, suggesting much lower business opportunities for commercial real estate practitioners engaged in leasing, sales and property management. See the full Commercial Leading Indicator report: here.
FOONG ON FINANCE: THE COMING APARTMENT SHORTAGE There will be a shortage of apartments in 2013. That is the prediction of Trammell Crow Residential’s (TCR) 2009 Outlook for the U.S. Multifamily Market.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 6
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 4654
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.