- 15 -
have found to be an improper comparison) arises from the method
of valuing the vacant land as a constituent of overall value.
We have some reservations about Mr. Schmidt’s valuation of
$55,000 for the land alone. This value reflects a value of 75
cents per square foot for the land. No other comparable property
reflected land values that low. In order to make the cost of
other vacant properties "comparable" to the subject property, Mr.
Schmidt subjected their square-foot values to discounts ranging
between 55 and 80 percent. He based these discounts upon his
perception that decedent’s property was inferior in size and
location. His report does not justify discounts of that
magnitude, and, as noted, he was not called to testify in support
of his valuation.
Respondent’s witness, Mr. Bollinger, using comparable
properties, found that the value of the land alone was $125,000.
When he valued comparable restaurant properties, however, he
amalgamated their land and building costs then divided the total
by the square footage of the buildings to arrive at a value per
square foot. On the basis of these calculations, he determined
that an appropriate value for the subject property was $60 per
square foot. We believe that Mr. Bollinger’s method does not
accurately reflect the underlying vacant land values and thus
distorts the total value calculation. The Latina restaurant was
situated on a relatively large piece of land. Most of the
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011