- 32 -
properties for grazing. Under cross-examination, Mr. Hamel
admitted that the Nipomo and Santa Maria properties had not
achieved the cachet of the Santa Ynez River Valley. Inclusion of
these properties, without location adjustment, leaves us with
serious concerns as to Mr. Hamel's conclusions regarding market
value.
Similarly, Mr. Hamel did not make any adjustment for the
presence of irrigated cropland in at least one of his comparable
sales,14 nor did he make any adjustment for water supply, zoning,
or topography. Other than a downward adjustment to smaller
parcels, the only adjustment Mr. Hamel made to the comparables
was a market timing adjustment. Although Mr. Hamel stated under
cross-examination that he gave the sale containing irrigated row
crops less weight in his overall analysis, his report does not so
state.
Respondent explains the absence of adjustments for zoning,
water supply, and location by asserting that no adjustment was
necessary because all the comparable properties were cattle
ranches. We reject respondent’s explanation because it ignores
the increased value that agricultural property may derive from
proximity to a metropolitan or resort area. See, e.g., Estate of
14Interestingly, Mr. Hamel had adjusted for the presence of
the irrigated cropland in a sales data sheet prepared in 1991
while he was employed by Reeder, Gilman & Associates.
Page: Previous 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011